reports that Symon after his death grew famous by many miracles which for feare of the King came not in publicke Thus this Historian thus Robert Grosthead the most devout and learned Bishop of that age who most of any opposed the Popes Vsurpations and exactions determine of the justice and lawfulnesse of the Barons Warres Walter Bishop of Worcester concurring in the same opinion with Grosthead The same author Rishanger records that the Earle of Glocester a great stickler in these warres against the king with whom at last he accorded signified to the King by his Letters Patents under his seale that he would never beare Armes against the King his Lord nor against his Sonne Prince Edward NISI DEFENDO but onely in his Defence which the King and Prince accepting of clearely proves that defensive Armes against King or Prince were in that age generally reputed Lawfull by King Prince Prelates Nobles People I may likewise adde to this what I read in Matthew Westminster that Richard Bishop of Chichester the day before the battle of Lewis against King Henry and his sonne who were taken prisoners in it by the Barons and 20000. of their Souldiers slaine absolved all that went to fight against the King their Lord from all their sinnes Such confidence had he of the goodnesse of the cause and justnesse of the warre In one word the oath of association prescribed by the Barons to the King of Romans brother to King Henry the third in the 43. yeare of his Raigne Heare all men that I Richard Earle of Cornewall doe here sweare upon the holy Evangelists that I shall be faithfull and diligent to reforme with you the Kingdome of England hitherto by the councell of wicked persons overmuch disordered and be an effectuall Coâ—djutor TO EXPELL THE REBELLS and disturbers of the same And this Oath I will inviolaby observe under paâ—ne of losing all the lands I have in England So helpe me God Which Oath all the Barrons and their associates tooke by vertue whereof they tooke up armes against the Kings ill Councellors and himselfe when he joined with them sufficiently demonstrates their publicke opinions and judgements of the lawfulnesse the justnesse of their warres and of all other necessarie defensive armes taken up by the Kingdomes generall assent for preservation of its Lawes Liberties and suppression of those Rebels and ill Councellors who fight against or labour to subvert them by their policies In the third yeare of King Edward the 2 d this king revoking his great Mynion Piers Gaveston newly banished by the Parliament into Ireland and admitting him into as great favour as before contrary to his oath and promise the Barrons hereupon by common consent sent the King word that he should banish Piers from his company according to his agreement or else they would certainâ—ly rise up against him as a perjured person Vpon which the King much terrified suffers Piers to abjure the Realme who returning againe soone after to the Court at Yorke where the king entertained him the Lords spirituall and temporall to preserve he liberties of the Church and Realme sent an honourable message to the King to deliver Piers into their hands or banish him for the preservation of the peace Treasure and weale of the Kingdome this wilfull King denies their just request whereupon the Lords thus contemned and deluded raised an army and march with all speede towards New-Castle NOT TO OFFER INIVRIE OR MOLESTATION TO THE KING but to apprehend Peirs and judge him according to Law upon this the King fleeth together with Peirs to Tinemouth and from thence to Scarborough Castle where Piers is forced to render himselfe to the Barrons who at Warwicke Castle without any legall triall by meere martiall Law beheaded him as a subvertor of the Lawes and an OPEN TRAITOR TO THE KINGDOME For which facts this King afterwards reprehending and accusing the Lords in Parliament in the 7 th yeare of his Raigne they stoutly answered THAT THEY HAD NOT OFFENDED IN ANY ONE POINT BVT DESERVED HIS ROYAL FAVOVR for they HAD NOT GATHERED FORCE AGAINST HIM though he were in Piers his company assisted countenanced and fled with him BVT AGAINST THE PVBLICKE ENEMIE OF THE REALME Whereupon there were two acts of oblivion passed by the King Lords and Commons assembled in that Parliament Printed in the 2 d Part of old Magna Charta The first that no person on the Kings part should be questioned molested impeached imprisoned and brought to judgement for causing Pierce to returne from Exile or harboring councelling or ayding hiâ—â—ere after his returne The second on the Barons part in these words It is provided by the King and by the Archbishops Bishops Abbots Priors Earles Barâ—s and Commons of the Realme assembled according to our Command and unanimously assented and accorded that none of what estate or condition soever he be shall in time to come be appealed or challenged for the apprehending deteining or death of Peirsde Gaveston nor shall for the said death be apprehended nor imprisoned impeached molested nor grieved nor judgement given against him by us nor by others at our suite nor at the suite of any other either in the Kings Court or elsewhere Which act the King by his Writ sent to the Judges of the Kings Bench commanding that this grant and concord shall be firme and stable in all its points and that every of them should be held and kept in perpetuitie to which end he commands them to cause this act to be there inrolled and firmely kept for ever A pregnant evidence that the Barons taking up Armes then against this Traytor and enemie of the Realme in pursuance of the Act and sentence of Parliament for his banishment though the King were in his company and assisted him all he might was then both by King and Parliament adjudged no Treason nor Rebellion at all in point of Law but a just honorable action Wherefore their taking up Armes is not mentioned in this Act of oblivion seeing they all held it just but their putting Piers to death without legall triall which in strictnesse of Law could not be justified Now whether this be not the Parliaments and kingdomes present case in point of Law who tooke up armes principally at first for defence of their owne Priviledges of Parliament and apprehention of delinquents who seducing the king withdrew him from the Parliament and caused him to raise an Army to shelter themselves under its power against the Parliament let every reasonable man determine and if it be so we see this ancient Act of Parliament resolves it to be no high Treason nor Rebellion nor offence against the King but a just lawfull act for the kings the kingdomes honour and safety Not long after this the two Spensers getting into the kings favour and seducing miscouncelling him as much as Gaveston did the Lords and Barrons hereupon in the 14 th and 15 th yeares of his raigne confederated
together to live and dye for justice and to their power to destroy the TRAITORS OF THE REALME Especially the two Spensers after which they raised an Army whereof they made Thomas Earle of Lancaster Generall and meeting at Sherborne they plunder and destroy the Spensers Castles Mannors Houses Friends Servants and marching to Saint Albanes with Ensignes displayed sent Messengers to the King then at London admonishing him not onely to rid his Court but Kingdome of the TRAITORS TO THE REALME the Spensers condemned by the Commons in many Articles to preserve the peace of the Realme and to grant them and all their followers Letteâ—s Pattents of indemnity for what they had formerly done Which the King at first denied but afterwards this Armie marching up to London where they were received by the City he yeelded to it and in the 15 th yeare of his Raigne by a speciall Act of Parliament the said Spensers were disinherited and banished the Realme formis-councelling the king oppressing the people by injustice a vising him to levie warre upon his Subjects making evill Iudges and other Officers to the hurt of the King and Kingdome â—ngâ—ossing the Kings eare and usurping his Royall authority as ENEMIES of the King and OF HIS PEOPLE and by another Act of Parliament it was then provided that no man should be questioned for any felonies or trespasses committed in the prosecution of Hugh â—e de pensers the father and sonne which Act runnes thus Whereas of late many great men of the Realme surmised to Sir Hugh le Despenser the sonne and Father many misdemeanors by them committed against the estate of our Lord the King and of his Crowne and to the disinheritance of the great men and destruction of the people and pursued those misdemeanors and attainder of them by force because they could not be attainted by processe of Law because that the said Sir Hughes had accroached to them the royall power in divers manner the said Grandees having mutually bound themselves by oath in writing without the advise of our Lord the King and after in pursuing the said Hugh and Hugh and their alies and adherents the said great men and others riding with banners displaied having in them the Armes of the king and their owne did take and occupie the Chattels Villages Mannors Lands Tenements Goods and likewise take and imprison some of the Kings leige people and others tooke some and slew others and did many other things in destroying the said Hugh and Hugh and their alies and others in England Wales and in the Marches whereof some things may be said Trespasses and others felonies and the said Hugh and Hugh in the Parliament of our Lord the King sommoned at Westminster three weekes after the Nativitie of Saint John Baptist the 15. yeare of his Raigne for the said misdemeanors were fore judged and banished the Realme by a vote of the Peeres of the Land and the foresaid great men in the said Parliament shewed to our Lord the King that the things done in the pursuite of the said Hugh and Hugh by reason of such causes of necessity cannot be legally redressed or punished without causing great trouble or perchance warre in the land which shall be worse and prayed our Lord that of all alliances trespasses and felonies they might be for ever acquitted for the preservation of peace the avoyding of warre and asswaging of angers and rancors and to make unitie in the land and that our Lord the King may more intirely have the hearts and Wills of the great men and of his people to maintaine and defend his Lands and to make warre upon and grieve his enemies It is accorded and agreed in the said Parliament by our Lord the King and by the Prelates Earles Barrons and Commons of the Realme there assembled by command of our Lord the King that none of what estate or condition soever he be for alliance at what time soever made by deed oath writing or in other manner nor for the taking occupying or detainer of Chattels towns Mannors Lands Tenements and good taken imprisoning or ransoming the Kings leige People or of other homicides robberies felonies or other things which may be noted as trespasses or fellonies committed against the peace of the king by the said great men their allies or adherents in the pursuite aforesaid since the first day of March last past till the thursday next after the feast of the assumption of our Ladie to wit the 19. day of August next ensuing be appealed nor challenged taken nor imprisoned nor grieved nor drawne into judgement by the King nor any other at the suite of any other which shall be in the Kings Court or in any place else but that all such trespasses and Felonies shall be discharged by this accord and assent saving alwaies to all men but to the said Hugh and Hugh action and reason to have and recover their Chattels Farmes mannors Lands tenements wards and marriages according to the Lawes and customes used in the Realme without punishment against the king or damages recovered against the party for the time aforesaid For which end they prescribed likewise a Charter of Pardon annexed to this Act according to the purport of it which every one that would might sue out which Charter you may read in old Magna Charta From which Act of Parliament I shall observe these three things First that this their taking up Armes to apprehend the Spensâ—rs as enemies to the King and kingdom and marching with banners displayd was not then reputed high Treason or Rebellion against the King though it were by way of offence not of defence and without any authority of Parliament for there is not one word of Treason or Rebellion in this Act or in the Charter of pardon pursuing it and if it had beene high Treason this Act and Charters on it extending onely to Fellonie and Trespasses not to Treasons and Rebellions would not have pardoned these transcendent Capitall crimes Secondly that the unlawfull outrages robberies and murders committed by the souldiers on the kings leige people and not on the two Spensers the sole delinquents were the occasion of this Act of oblivion and pardon not the Armed pursuing of them when they had gotten above the reach of Law Thirdly that though this were an offensive not defensive warre made without common assent of Parliament and many murthers robberies and misdemeanors committed in the prosecution of it upon the kings leige people who were no Delinquents yet being for the common good to suppresse and banish these ill Councellors enemies Traytors to King and Kingdome the King and Parliament thought it such a publicke service as merited a pardon of these misdemeanors in the carriage of it and acquitted all who were parties to it from all suites and punishments All which considered is a cleare demonstration that they would have resolved our present defensive warre by Authoritie of both Houses accompanied with no such outrages as these for
Barbarous Inhumanity for any person not to put to his uttermost strength speedily to close up the mortall wounds of his bleeding dying Native Country but to protract its cure to enlarge encrease its deadly Ulcers Stabs Sores and make a lasting trade of Warre out of a sordid sinfull desire of Gaine of Plunder to raise a private fortune by the Republicks ruines a sinne of which some perchance are guilty is an unparalleld most unnaturall prodigious Impiety It was thought a great dishonour heretofore for men of Honour and Estates not to serve and defend their Country gratis as our own Lawbooks Histories plentifully manifest and shall such Persons now turne sordid Mercenaries stirre neither hand nor foot without their Pay and be more diligent to get their wages than discharge their Service God forbid It is Recorded of the Children of Gad and Reuben after they had recovered their inheritance on this side Jordan that they went all up armed before the Lord over Jordan at their owne free cost untill they had driven out all the enemies in it before them subdued the Land and setled their brethren of the other Tribes peaceably in it And shall not Englishmen of Estates doe the like for their Brethren now in these times of need when money the sinewes of Warre is almost quite shrunke up by reason of former Disbursements and want of Trade We read That the very Heathen Kings of Canaan when they came and fought in Taanach by the waters of Megiddo against the Israelites THEY TOOKE NO GAINE OF MONEY for their paines Such was their Noble-generosity which Deborah registers in her Song for their eternall Glory And we heare of divers Lords and Gentlemen in the Kings Army which serve against their Country gratis yea furnish out sundry Horse and Foote of their proper cost of few or none such there who receive any Pay And shall these be more free generous active in serving fighting against God Religion Lawes Liberties Parliament and their Country than those of like Ranke and quality on the Parliaments party are in warring for them O let not such anignoble unchristian Report be ever once justly told in Gath or published in the streets of Askelon lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoyce lest the sonnes and daughters of the uncircumcised triumph I know there are some Heroicke Worthies in the Parliaments Armies of whom I may truely sing with Deborah My heart is toward the Governours of Israel that offered themselves willingly among the people and who like Zebulon and Nepthali have freely jeoparded their lives unto the death in the high places of the field Blessed be their Endeavours and their Names for ever Honourable I shall now onely wish that others would imitate their laudable examples that so our long-lingring warres may be speedily and happily determined in a blessed pure pious secure honourable lasting Peace They are Tormentors not Chirurgions Executioners not true Souldiers who desire endeavour not speedily to close up and heale their dearest Countries bleeding festring wounds for which I have prepared this Treatise as a Soveraigne Balme to incarne and cicatrize them not ulcerate or inflame them It was the Prophets Patheticke expostulation The harvest is past the Summer is ended and we are not healed Is there no balme in Gilead Is there no Physitian there why then is not the health of the Daughter of my people recovered It may be Englands and Irelands expostulation now The Lord put it into the hearts of our great Physitians the King Parliament and Grandees of both Armies that they may now at last with bleeding melting hearts and spirits speedily poure forth such effectuall healing Balmes into these two dying Kingdomes deadly wounds as may effectually cure and restore them to more perfect health and vigor than they ever formerly enjoyed that so they may lose nothing but their putrid blood their proud dead flesh their filthy sanies and corrupt humours by their unnaturall stabs already received Towards the advancement of which much desired cure if these my undigested rude Collections interrupted with sundry inevitable interloping Distractions which may justly excuse their many defects may adde any contribution or satisfie any seduced or scrupulous Consciences touching this present Warre I shall deeme my labours highly recompensed And so recommending them to Gods blessing and thy charitable acceptation I shall detaine thee with no further Prologue Farewell THE SOVERAIGNE POVVER OF PARLIAMENTS KINGDOMES PROVING I st That the Parliaments present necessary Defensive Warre is Iust and Lawfull both in point of Law and Conscience and no Treason nor Rebellion HAving in the two former Parts of this Discourse dissipated foure chiefe Complaints against the Parliaments proceedings I come now in order in point of time and sequell to the 5 th Grand Objection of the King Royalists and Papists against the Parliament To wit That they have traiterously taken up Armes and levied warre against the King himselfe in his Kingdome and would have taken away his life at Keinton battell which is no lesse than Rebellion and High Treason by the Statute of 25. E. 3. c. 2. with other obsolete Acts and by the Common Law Which Obiection though last in time is yet of greatest weight and difficulty now most cryed up and insisted on of all the rest in many of his Majesties late Proclamations Declarations and in Anti-Parliamentary Pamphlets To give a punctuall Answere to this capitall Complaint not out of any desire to foment but cease this most unnaturall bloody warre which threatens utter desolation to us if proceeded in or not determined with a just honourable secure lasting peace now lately rejected by his Majesties party I say First that it is apparent to all the world who are not willfully or maliciously blinded That this Majesty first began this warre not onely by his endeavors to bring up the Northerne Army to force the Parliament confessed by the flight letters examinations of those who were chiefe Actors in it but by raising sundry forces under colour of a guard before the Parliament levied any Secondly that the Parliament in raising their forces had no intention at all to offer the least violence to his Majesties person Crowne dignity nor to draw any English blood but onely to defend themselves and the Kingdome against his Majesties Malignant invasive plundring Forces to rescue his Majestie out of the hands the power of those ill Councellers and Malignants who withdrew him from his Parliament to bring him backe with honour peace safety to his great Councell their Generall and Army Marching with a Petition to this purpose and to bring those Delinquents to condigne punishment who most contemptuously deserted the Houses contrary to Order Law the Priviledges of Parliament their owne Protestation taken in both Houses sheltring themselves under the power of his Majesties presence and Forces from the justice of the Houses and apprehension of their Officers contrary to
all presidents in former ages in High affront of the priviledges honour power of the Parliament and Fundamentall knowns Lawe of the Realme Since which time his Majestie having contrary to his former Proclamations and frequent Printed solemne Declarations entertained not onely divers Irish Popâ—sh Rebels but likewise English and Outlandish Papists in his Army and given Commissions to sundry Arch Popish Recusants to Arme themselves and raise Forces against the Parliament and Kingdom now in the field in all the Northerne parts Wales and other places and that under the Popes owne consecrated Banner as many report in defiance of our Protestant Religion designed by the Popish Party both at home and abroad to no lesse then utter extirpation in England as well as in Ireland if not in Scotland too as some of them openly professe the Parliament are hereupon necessitated to augment and recrute their forces as for the precedent ends at first so now more especially for the necessary defence of the Protestant Religion established among us by law against which they and all others who are not wilfully blinded visibly discerne a most apparant desperate conspiracie which though not cleerely perceived but onely justly suspected at first doth now appeare all circumstances and agents considered to be the very Embrio and primitive cause of this deplorable warre against which the Parliament and subjects are now more necessitated and engaged to desend themselves then ever seeing they have by all possible meanes endeavored to prevent this warre at first and since to accommodate it though in vaine upon just reasonable and honorable safe termes for King and Kingdome The sole Question then in this case thus truely stated will be Whether his Majestie having contrary to his Oath Duty the fundamentall Laws of God and the Realme raised an Armie of Malignants Papists Forraigners against his Parliament Kingdome People to make an Offensive warre upon them to murther rob spoyle deprive them of their peace liberties properties estates to impose unlawfull taxes by force upon them protect Delinquents and evill Councellors against the Parliaments Iustice and violently to undermine our established Protestant Religion the Common-wealth of England legally assembled in Parliament and all Subjects in such cases by Command and direction from both Houses of Parliament may not lawfully and justly without any Treason or Rebellion in point of Law and Conscience take up defensive Armes to preserve the Priviledges of Parliament their Lawes lives liberties estates properties Religion to bring Delinquents and ill Councellours to condigne punishment and rescue his seduced Majestie out of their hands and power though he be personally present with them to assist and countenance them in this unnaturall destructive warre And under correction notwithstanding any thing I ever yet heard or read to the contrary I conceive affirmatively that they may justly do it both in point of Law and Conscience I shall begin with Law because in this unhappie controversie it must direct the conscience First I have already proved in Judgement of Law the Parliament and Kingdome assembled in it to be the Soveraigne power and of greater authority then the King who is but their publike Minister in point of civill Iustice and Generall in matters of warre as the Roman Kings and Emperours were and other forraigne Kings of old and at this day are The Parliament then being the highest power and having principall right and authority to denounce conclude and proclaime warre as I have manifested in the debate of the Militia may not onely lawfully resist but oppugne suppresse all Forces raised against it and the Kingdomes peace or welfare Secondly the principall end of the Kingdomes originall erecting Parliaments and investing them with supreame power at first was to defend not onely with good Lawes and Councell but when absolute necessitie requires as now it doth with open force of Armes the Subjects Liberties Persons Estates Religion Lawes Lives Rights from the encroachments and violence of their Kings and to keepe Kings within due bounds of Law and Iustice the end of instituting the Senate and Ephori among the Lacaedemonians the Senate and Dictators among the Romans the Forum Suprarbiense and Justitia Aragoniae among the Aragonians of Parliaments Dietts and Assemblies of the estates in other forraigne Kingdomes and in Scotland as I shall prove at large in its proper place This is cleare by the proceedings of all our Parliaments in former ages Especially in King Iohns Henry the third Edward the 1. 2. 3. and Richard the seconds Raignes by the latter Parliaments in King Iames his raigne yea of 3. Caroli the last dissolved Parliament and this now sitting whose principall care and imployment hath beene to vindicate the Subjects Liberties properties lawes and Religion from all illegall encroachments on them by the Crown and its ill Instruments by the forecited resolutions of Bracton Fleta the Myrror of Iustices Vowell Holinshed the Councell of Basill and others that the Parliament ought to restraine and bridle the king when he casts off the bridle of the Law and invades the Subjects Liberties especially with open force of Armes in an Hostile manner and by the constant practise of our Ancestors and the Barons Warres in maintenance of Magna Charta with other good Lawes and Priviledges confirmed by Parliament If then the Parliament be instrusted by the Kingdome with this Superlative power thus to protect the Subjects Liberties properties Lawes persons Religion c. against the kings invasions on them by policie or violence they should both betray their trust yea the whole kingdome too if they should not with open Force of Armes when Policy Councell and Petitions will not doe it defend their owne and the Subjects Liberties persons priviledges c. against his Majesties offensive Armies which invade them intending to make the whole kingdome a present booty to their insaciable rapine and a future vassall to his Majesties absolute arbitrary power by way of conquest I reade in Bodin that the Roman Senate being no way able to restraine Caesar tooke their refuge to that ancient Decree of the Senate which was commonly made but in dangerous times of the Common-wealâ— Videant Consules caeteri Magistratus ne quid detrimenti capiat Respublica Let the Consulls and other Majestrates fore see that the Common-weale take no harme With which decree of the Senate the Consulls being armed sodainely raised their power commanding Pompey to take up Armes and raise an Army against Caesar to oppose his violent proceedings by force who after his conquest of Pompey refusing to rise up to the Consulls Pretors and whole Senate out of his pride through his ill Councellors advise and talking with them as if they had beene but private men he so farre offended both the Senate and people that to free the Republicke from his Tyranny and preserve their hereditary Liberties they conspired his death and soone after murthered him in the Senate-house where they gave him
no lesse than 23. wounds And Hieronimus Blanca assures us that the Suprarbiense Forum Iustitia Aragoniae or States of Aragâ—n erected to withstand the tyrannie and encroachments of their kings may by the Laws of their Realme assemble together and RESIST THEIR KING WITH FORCE OF ARMES as oft as there shall bee neede to repulse his or his Officers violence against the Lawes For when they erected this Court they said It would be little worth to have good Lawes enacted and a middle Court of Iustice betweene the King and people appointed if it might not be lawfull to take up Armes for their Defence when it was needfull being agreeable to the very Law of nature and reason Because then it will not be sufficient to fight with Counsell For if this were not so and the State and Subjects in such cases might not lawfully take up armes all things had long ere this been in the power of Kings Therefore no doubt our Parliament and State as well as others may by the very Law of Nature and fundamentall institution of Parliaments now justly take up Defensive armes to preserve their Liberties Lawes Lives Estates Religion from vassallage and ruine Thirdly Our owne Parliaments Prelates Nobles and Commons in all ages especially in times of Popery as well in Parliament as out have by open force of armes resisted suppressed the oppressions rapines vnjust violence and armies of their Princes raised against them Yea incountred their Kings in open Battells taken their persons Prisoners and sometimes expelled nay deposed them from their Royall authority when they became incorrigible open professed enemies to their kingdomes their Subjects seeking the ruine slavery and desolation of those whom by Office Duty Oath and common Iustice they were bound inviolably to protect in Liberty and peace as the premised Histories of Archigallo Emerian Vortigern Segebert Osred Ethelred Bernard Edwin Ceolwulfe King John Henry the 3 d. Edward 1. and 2. Richard the 2 Henry the 6 th our British Saxon English Kings and other examples common in our owne Annalls plentifully manifest Neither are their examples singular but all Kingdomes generally throughout the world in all ages have done the like when their Kings degenerated into Tyrants of which there are infinite precedens in History which actions all ages all Kingdomes have alwaies reputed lawfull both in point of Policy Law Religion as warranted by the very Lawes of Nature Reason State Nations God which instruct not onely particular persons but whole Cities and Kingdomes for their owne necessary defence preservation the supportation of humane Societie and Libertie to protect themselves against all unlawfull violence and Trranny even of their Kings themselves or their Ministers to whom neither the Lawes of God Nature Man nor any civill Nation ever yet gave the least authority to Murther Spoile Oppresse enslave their Subjects or deprive them of their lawfull Liberties or Estates which resistance were it unlawfull or unjust as many ignorant Royallists and Parasites now teach some few oppressing tyrannizing wilfull Princes might without the least resistance ruine murther enslave the whole world of men overthrow all setled formes of civill government extirpate Christian Religion and destroy all humane Society at their pleasures all which had beene effected yea all States and Kingdomes totally subverted long agoe by ambitious Tyrannizing lawlesse Princes had not this Lawfull Naturall Hereditary power of resisting and opposing their illegall violence inherent in their Parliaments States Kingdomes restrained and suppressed their exorbitances of this kinde Now that this necessary Defensive opposition and resistance against open Regall Hostile violence which hath beene ever held lawfull and frequently practised in all Kingdomes all ages heretofore as just and necessary should become sodenly unlawfull to our Parliament and Kingdome onely at this instant seemes very unreasonable unto me Fouthly It is the expresse resolution of Aristotle Xenophon Polibius Pope Elutherius in his Epistle to our first Christian King Lucius King Edward the Confessor in his established Lawes c. 17. the Councell of Paris Anno 829. and Isiodor cited by it Iohn Bodin Iohn Mariana and generally of all forraigne Divines and Polititians Pagan or Christian yea of Bracton Fleta Fortescue and King Iames himselfe that a King governing in a setled Kingdome ceaseth to be a King and degenerates into a Tyrant so soone as hee leaves to rule by his Lawes much more when he begins to invade his Subjects Persons Rights Liberties to set up an Abitrary power impose unlawfull Taxes raise Forces and make Warre upon his Subjects whom he should Protect and rule in peace to pillage plunder waste and spoile his Kingdome imprison murther and destroy his people in an hostile manner to captivate them to his pleasure the very highest degree of Tyranny condemned and detested by God and all good men The whole State and Kingdome therefore in such cases as these for their owne just necessary preservation may lawfully with force of Armes when no other course can secure them not onely passively but actively resist their Prince in such his violent exorbitant tyrannicall proceedings without resisting any kingly lawfull royall Authority Vested in the Kings person for the kingdomes preservation onely not destruction because in and as to these illegall oppressions tyrannicall actions not warranted but prohibited by the Lawes of God and the Realme to whom he is accountable and by whom he is justly censurable for them he is no lawfull King nor Majestrate but an unjust oppressing Tyrant and a meere private man who as to these proceedings hath quite denuded himselfe of his just Regall authority So that all those wholsome Lawes made by the whole State in Parliament for the necessary preservation and defence of their Kings Royall Person and lawfull Soveraigne power the suppression of all Insurrections Treasons Conspiracies and open Warres against them whiles they governe their people justly according to Law as all good Princes are obliged to doe by oath and duty or the open violent resisting of their Lawfull authority and Commands to which all Subjects both in point of Law and Conscience ought cheerfully and readily to Submit will yeeld no publike Countenance Encouragement or Protection at all to Kings in their irregall tyrannicall oppressions or violent courses especially when they turne professed publike enemies to their people proclaime open Warre against them invade their Lawes Liberties Goods Houses Persons and exercise all acts of Hostilitie against them as fatre forth as the most barbarous Forraigne Enemies would doe It being against all common sence and reason to conceive that our Parliaments Lawes which strictly inhibit and punish the very smallest violations of the publike peace with all kinds of Oppressions Robberies Trespasses Batteries Assaults Bloodsheds Fraies Murthers Routs Riots Insurrections Burglaries Rapes Plunderings Force-able Entries Invasions of the Subjects Liberties or Properties in all other persons and greatest publike Officers whatsoever
whose Delinquences are so much the more hainous execrable and censurable as their persons honours and places are more eminent should so farre countenance justifie or patronize them onely in the King the Supreame fountaine of Iustice ad tutelam Legis corporum bonorum erectus as Fortescue and Sir Edward Cooke resolve Cujus Potestas Iuris est non Injuriae cum sit author Iuris non debet inde injuriarum nasci occasio unde Iura naseuntur as Bracton and Fleta determine as not to permit the Subjects under paine of Rebellion and high Treason by force of Armes upon expresse command and direction of the whole Kingdome in Parliament so much as to defend their Persons Goods Estates Houses Wives Children Liberties Lives Religion against the open violence of the King himselfe or his Malignant plundring murthering Papists Caveleers When as Kings of all others as Bracton For escue and Mariana prove at large both by Oath and Duty ought to be more observant of and obedient to the Laws of God and their Realmes which are no respectors of Persons then the very meanest of their Subjects That Precept then of Paul Rom. 13. 1. 2. 3. Let every Soule be subject to the higher Powers c. And the Statute of 25. E. 3. c. 2. with other obsolete Acts which declare it High Treason to levy Warre against the King in his Realme must needs be intended of and quallified with these subsequent just limitations sutable to their genuine sense and meaning to wit That as long and so farre foorth as Kings justly and uprightly doe execute their just Royall power conferred on them by God and their people according to the Law of God and their Realmes to the Protection encouragement and praise of all their good Subjects and the deserved punishment onely of Malefactors they must and ought to be cheerefully obeyed and quietly submitted to as Gods owne Ministers without the least resistance private or publike neither ought any private men upon any private injuries of their owne authority to raise up in Armes against them seeing they are publike Magistrates in whom all the Kingdome have an interest without the generall assent and authority of the whole State and Kingdome or of both Houses of Parliment which represents it But if Kings degenerate into Tyrants and turne professed enemies to their Kingdomes Parliaments People by making open Warre against them by spoyling murthering imprisoning maiming sacking destroying or putting them out of their Protections without any just or lawfull grounds endeavouring by force of Armes to subvert their Lawes Liberties Religion and expose them as a prey to their mercilesse blood-thirsty Souldiers or bring in Forraigne Forces to conquer them our present case I dare confidently averre it was never the thought nor intention of Paul or the Holy Ghost much lesse of our Nobles Prelats and Commons in Parliament which enacted these Lawes who so oft tooke up Armes aswell offensive as defensive against our Kings in such like cases heretofore to inhibit Subjects Kingdomes Parliaments especially by direct Votes and Ordinances of both Houses under paine of damnation high Treason or Rebellion by defensive Armes to resist Kings themselves or any of their Cavalliers and if this question had beene put to Paul Peter or any of those Parliaments which enacted these objected Lawes Whether they ever meant by these Precepts or Statutes totally to prohibite all Subjects by generall assent in Parliament to take up such defensive Armes or make any forceable resistance against their Kings or their Armies in such cases of extremity and necessity as these under the foresaid penalties I make little question but they would have clearely resolved that it was never so much as within the compasse of their thoughts much lesse their plaine intention to prohibite such a resistance in this or such like cases but onely according to the precedent exposition of their words and that they never imagined to establish in the world any Vnresistable Lawlesse Tyranny or any such spoile or butchery of Kingdomes of Subjects execrable to God and man in all persons all ages which have resisted them even unto blood but rather totally to suppresse them There being scarce any more pregnant Text against the Tyranny the boundlesse Prerogatives the illegall proceedings of Kings and Higher Powers in all the Scripture then that of Romans 13. 1. to 7. if rightly scanned as Pareus and others on it manifest Therefore the Parliaments and peoples present defensive Warre and resistance against their seduced King and his Malignant Popish Cavalliers is no violation of any Law of God of the Realme but a just necessary Warre which they have to the uttermost endeavoured to prevent and no Treason no Rebellion at all within the meaning of any Law or Statute unlesse we should thinke our Parliaments so mad as to declare it high Treason or Rebellion even for the Parliament and Kingdome it selfe so much as to take up Armes for their owne necessary preservation to prevent their inevitable ruine when they are openly assaulted by Royall armies which none can ever presume they would doe being the very high way to their owne and the whole Kingdomes subversion Fiftly admit the King should bring in Forraigne forces French Spanish Danes Dutch or Irish to destroy or Conquer his Subjects Parliament Kingdome as some such forces are already landed and more expected dayly and should join himselfe personally with them in such a service I thinke there is no Divine Lawyer or true hearted Englishman so void of reason or common understanding as to affirme it Treason or Rebellion in point of Law and a matter of Damnation in Conscience or true Divinity for the Parliaments Subjects Kingdome to take up necessary defensive armes for their owne preservation in such a case even against the King himselfe and his army of Aliens but would rather deeme it a just honourable necessary action yea a duty for every English man to venture his life and all his fortunes for the defence of his owne dearest Native Countrey Posterity Liberty Religion and no lesse then a glorious Martyrdome to dye manfully in the Field in such a publicke quarrell the very Heathens generally resolving that Dulce decorum est pro Patria mori Et mortes pro Patria appetitae Non solum gloriosae Rhetoribus sed etiam beatae videri solent In a case of this quallitie Whence that noble Romane Camillus professed to all the Romanes in a publike Oration Patriae deesse quoad vita suppetat alijs turpe Camillo etiam NEFAS EST. And is not there the selfe same equity and reason when the King shall raise an Army of Popish English or Irish Rebels Malignants Delinquents and bring in Forraigners though yet in no great proporation to effect the like designe If armed forceable resistance be no Treason no Rebellion in Law or Conscience in the first it can be no such crime in our present
case Sixtly I would demand of any Lawyer or Divine What is the true genuine reason that the taking up of offensive armes against or offering violence to the person or life of the King is High Treason in point of Law and Divinitie Is it not onely because and as he is the head and chiefe member of the Kingdome which hath a Common interest in him and because the Kingdome it selfe sustaines a publike prejudice and losse by this War against and violence to his Person Doubtlesse every man must acknowledge this to be the onely reason for if he were not such a publike person the levying War against or murthering of him could be no High Treason at all And this is the reason why the elsewhere cited Statutes of our Realme together with our Historians make levying of Warre deposing or killing the King by private persons High Treason not onely against the King but the REALME and Kingdome to Witnesse the Statutes of 5. R. 2. c 6. 11. R. 2. c. 1. 3. 6. 17 R. 2. c. 8. 21. R. 2. c. 2. 4. 20. 3. H. 5. Parl. 2. c. 6. 28. H. 8. c. 7. 1. Mar. c. 6. 13. Eliz. c. 1. 3. Iaco. 1. 2. 3. 4. and the Act of Pacification this present Parliament declaring those persons of England and Scotland TRAITORS TO EITHER REALME who shall take up Armes against either Realme without common consent of Parliament which Enact The levying of Warre against the Kingdome and Parliament invading of England or Ireland treachery against the Parliament repealing of certaine Acts of Parliament ill Counselling the King coyning false Money and offering violence to the Kings person to take away his Life to be high Treason not onely against the King and his Crowne but THE REALME TO and those who are guilty of such crimes to bee High Traitors and Enemies TO THE REALME as well at to the King Hence Iohn of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster being accused in a Parliament held in 7. R. 2. by a Carmelite Frier of High Treason for practising sodainely to surprise the KING and seize upon his Kingdome the Duke denied it as a thing incredible upon this very ground If I should thus said he affect the Kingdome Js it credible after your murder which God forbid that the Lords of this Kingdome could patiently endure me Domini mei ET PATRIAE PRODITOREM being a Traitor both of my LORD and COUNTREY Hence in the same Parliament of 7. R. 2. John Walsh Esquire Captaine of Cherburg in France was accused by one of Navarre DE PRODITIONE REGIS REGNI Of Treason against the King and Kingdome for delivering up that Castle to the Enemies And in the Parliament of 3. R. 2. Sir John Annesley Knight accused Thomas Ketrington Esquire of Treason against the King and Realme for betraying and selling the Castle of Saint Saviour within the Isse of Constantine in France to the French for a great summe of money when as he neither wanted Victuals nor meanes to defend it both which Accusations being of Treasons beyond the Sea were determined by Battle and Duels fought to decide them Hence the great Favourite Pierce Gaveston Tanquam Legum subversor Hostis Terrae Publicus Publicus Regni Proditor capite truncatus est and the two Spensers after him were in Edward the second his Raigne likewise banished condemned and executed as Traitors to the King and Realme ET REGNI PRODITORES for miscounselling and seducing the King and moving him to make Warre upon his people Hence both the Pierces and the Archbishop of Yorke in their Articles against King Henry the fourth accused him as guilty of High Treason and a Traitor both to the King Realme and Kingdome of England for Deposing and murthering Richard the second And hence the Gunpouder Conspirators were declared adjudged and executed as Traitors both to the KING REALME for attempting to blow up the Parliament House when the King Nobles and Commons were therein assembled If then the King shall become an open enemie to his Kingdome and Subjects to waste or ruine them or shall seeke to betray them to a Forraigne Enemy which hath beene held no lesse then Treason in a King to doe who by the expresse resolution of 28. H. 8. cap. 7. may become a Traitor to the REALME and thereupon forfeit his very right and title to the Crowne it can be no Treason nor Rebellion in Law or Theologie for the Parliament Kingdome Subjects to take up armes against the King and his Forces in such a case when he shal wilfully and maliciously rent himselfe from and set himselfe in direct opposition against his Kingdome and by his owne voluntary actions turne their common interest in him for their good and protection into a publicke engagement against him as a common Enemy who seekes their generall ruine And if Kings may lawfully take up armes against their Subjects as all Royallists plead after they reject their lawfull power and become open Rebels or Traitors because then as to this they cease to be Subjects any longer and so forfeit the benefit of their Royal protection By the self-same reason the bond and stipulation being mutuall Kings being their Subjects Liege Lords by Oath and Duty as well as they their Liege people When Kings turne open professed Foes to their Subjects in an Hostile Warrelike way they presently both in Law and Conscience cease to be their Kings de jure as to this particular and their Subjects alleagiance thereby is as to this discharged and suspended towards them as appeares by the Kings Coronation Oath and the Lords and Prelats conditionall Fealty to King Steven so that they may justly in Law and Conscience resist their unlawfull assaults as enemies for which they must onely censure their owne rash unjust proceedings and breach of Faith to their People not their Peoples just defensive opposition which themselves alone occasioned Seventhly It must of necessity be granted that for any King to levie warre against his Subjects unlesse upon very good grounds of Law and conscience and in case of absolute necessity when there is no other remedy left is directly contrary to his very Oath and duty witnes the Law of King Edward the Confessor cap. 17. and Coronation Oathes of all our Kings forementioned To keepe PEACE and godly agreement INTIRELY ACCORDING TO THEIR POWER to their people Contrary to all the fundamentall Lawes of the Realme and the Prologues of most Statutes intirely to preserve and earnestly to indeavour the peace and welfare of their peoples persons goods estates lawes liberties Contrary to the main tenor of all Sacred Scriptures which have relation unto Kings but more especially to the 1 Kings 12. 21. 23. 24. and 2 Chron. 11. 1. 2. Where when King Rehoboam had gathered a very great army to fight against the ten Tribes which revolted from him for following his young Counsellors advice and denying their just request and crowned Ieroboam for their King
intending to reduce them to his obedience by force of armes God by his Prophet Shemiah expressely prohibited him and his army to goe up or fight against them and made them all to returne to their owne houses without fighting and to Isay 14. 4. 19. to 22. where God threatens to cast the King of Babilon out of his grave as an abhominable branch as a carcasse trodden under foot marke the reason Because thou hast destroyed thy Land and slaine thy People to cut off from Babylon his name and remembrance and Sonnes and Nephewes as he had cut off his peoples though heathens Yea contrary to that memorable Speech of that noble Roman Valerius Corinus when he was chosen Dictator and went to fight against the Roman conspirators who toke up armes against their Country Fugeris etiam honestius tergumque civi dederis quam pugnaveris contra patriam nunc ad pacificandum bene atque honeste inter primos stabis postulate aequa et ferte quanquam vel iniquis standum est potius quam impias inter nos conseramus manus c. If then a Kings offensive warre upon his Subjects without very just grounds and unevitable occasions be thus utterly sinfull and unlawfull in law and Conscience and most diametrally contrary to the Oath Office trust and duty of a King who by this strange metamorphosis becomes a Wolfe instead of a Shepheard a destroyer in liew of a Protector a publike Enemy in place of a Common friend an unnaturall Tyrant instead of a naturall King it followes inevitably that the Subjects or Kingdomes resistance and defensive warre in such a case both by the law of God of nature of the Realme must be lawfull and just because directly opposite to the only preservative against that warre which is unlawfull and unjust and so no Treason nor Rebellion by any Law of God or man which are illegall and criminall too Eightly It is the received resolution of all Canoniâ—â—s Schoolemen and Civill Lawyers That a defensive warre undertaken onely for necessary defence doth not propâ—ly deserve the nam of warre but onely of Defence That it is no lâ—vying of warre at all which implies an active offenâ—ive not passive defensive raising of forces and so no Treason nor offence within the statute of 25. E. 3. c. 2. as the Parliament the onely proper Iudge of Treasons hath already resolved in point of Law but a faculty onely of defence Cuilibet Omni Iure ipsoque Rationis Ductu Permissa c. permitted to every one By all Law or right and by the very conduct of reason since to propulse violence and iniury is permitted by the very Law of Nations Hence of all the seven sorts of warre which they make they define the last to be A just and Necessary War quod fit se et sua defendendo and that those who dâ—e is such a war caeteris paribus are safe Causa 23. qu. 1. and if they be slaine for defence of the Common-wealth their memory shall live in perpetuall glory And hence they give this Definition of a just Warre Warre is a Lawfull Defence against an imminent or praeceeding offence upon a publike or private cause concluding That if Defence be severed from Warre it is a Sedition not Warre Although the Emperour himselfe denounce it Yea although the whole World combined together Proclaime it For the Emperour a King can no more lawfully hurt another in Warre then he can take away his goods or life without cause Therefore let Commentatoâ—s bâ—awle eternally about Warre yet they shall never justifie nor prove it lawfull Nisi ex Defensione Legitima but when it proceeds from Lawfull defence all Warres being rash and unjust against those who justly defend themselves This Warre then being undertaken by the Parliament onely for their owne and the Kingdomes necessary defence against the Kings invasive Armies and Cavalliers especially now after the Kings rejection of all Honourable and safe termes of Peace and accommodation tendered to him by the Parliament must needs be just and lawfull and so no Treason nor Rebellion in point of Law or Conscience Since no Law of God nor of the Realme hath given the King any Authority or Commission at all to make this unnaturall Warre upon his Parliament his people to enslave their Soules and Bodies or any inhibition to them not to defend themselves in such a case These generall Considerations thus premised wherein Law and Conscience walke hand in hand I shall in the next place lay downe such particular grounds for the justification of this Warre which are meerely Legall extracted out of the bowels of our knowne Lawes which no professors of them can contradict First it is unquestionable that by the Common and Statute Law of the Land the King himselfe who cannot lawfully proclaime Warre against a Forraigne Enemy much lesse against his people without his Parliaments previous assent as I have elsewhere proved cannot by his absolute Soveraigne Prerogative either by verball Commands or Commissions under the great Seale of England derive any lawfull or just Authority to any Generall Captaine Cavalliers or person whatsoever without Legall Triall and Conviction to seize the Goods or Chattels of any his Subjects much lesse forcecibly to Rob Spoile Plunder Wound Beat Kill Imprison or make open War upon them without a most just and in vitable occasion and that after open kostilitij denounced against them And if any by vertue of such illegal Commissions or Mandats Assault Plunder Spoile Rob Beat Wound Slay Imprison the Goods Chattels Houses Persons of any Subject not lawfully convicted They may and ought to be proceeded against resisted apprehended indicted condemned for it notwithstanding such Commissions as Trespassers Theeves Burglarers Felons Murderers both by Statute and Common Law As is clearely enacted and resolved by Magna Charta cap. 29. 15. E. 3. Stat. 1. cap. 1. 2. 3. 42. E. 3. cap. 1. 3. 28. E. 1. Artic. super Chartas cap. 2. 4 E. 3. c. 4. 5. E. 3. cap. 2. 24. E. 3. cap. 1. 2 R. 2 cap. 7. 5 R. 2 ca 5. 1. H. 5. cap. 6. 11. R. 2. cap. 1. to 6. 24 H. 8. cap. 5. 21. Jacob. c. 3. Against Monopolies The Petition of Right 3. Caroli 2. E. 3. c. 8. 14. E. 3. ca. 14. 18. E. 3. Stat. 3. 20. E. 3. cap. 1. 2. 3. 1. R 2. cap. 2. And generally all Satutes against Purveyers 42. Ass Pl. 5. 12. Brooke Commissions 15. 16. Fortesoue c p. 8. 9. 10. 13. 14. 26. 1. E. 3. 2. 2. H. 4. 24. Br. Faux Jmprisonment 30. 28. 22. E. 4 45. a Tr. 16. H. 6. Monstrans de Faits 182 Stamford lib. 1. fol. 13. a. 37. a. The Conference at the Committies of both Houses 3 o. Aprilis 4 o. Caroli concerning the Right and Priviledge of the Subject newly Printed Cooke lib. 5. fol. 50. 51. lib. 7. fol. 36. 37. lib. 8. fol. 125. to 129. Iudge Crooks and Huttons Arguments against Shipmoney with divers
execute them as common enemies to the kingdomes peace and welfare even by the knowne Common Law and Statutes of the Realme and seife Delinquents notwithstanding any royall Commission or personal commands they may or can produce Fourthly it is most certaine that every Subject by the very Common Law of the Realm yea Law of Nature as he is a member of the State and Church of England is bound both in duty and conscience when there is necessary occasion to Array and Arme himselfe to resist the invasions and assaults of open enemies of the Realme especially of Forraigners as is cleare by infinite * Presidents cited by the Kings owne Councell and recited by Judge Crooke in his Argument concerning Ship-money in both the Houses two Remonstrances and Declarations against the Commission of Array and the Answer of the first of them in the Kings name all newly Printed to which I shall referre the Reader for fuller Satisfaction and by the expresse statutes of 1 E. 3. c. 5. 25. E. 3. c. 8. and 4. H. 4. c. 13. The reason is from the Originall compact and mutuall stipulation of every member of any Republicke State or Society of men for mutuall defence one of another upon all occasions of invasion made at their first association and incorporation into a Republike state kingdome Nation of which we have a pregnant example Iudg. 20. 1. to 48. If then the King himselfe shall introduce forraigne Forces and enemies into his Realme to levie war against it or shall himself become an open enemie to it the Subjects are obleiged by the self-same reason law equity especially upon the Parliaments command to Arm themselves to defend their Native Country Kingdome against these forraigne and domesticke Forces and the King himselfe if he joyne with them as farre forth as they are bound to doe it upon the Kings own Writ and Commission in case he joyned with the Parliament and Kingdome against them the necessary defence and preservation of the Kingdome and themselves and of the King onely so farre forth as he shewes himselfe a King and Patron not an enemie of his Kingdome and Subjects being the sole ground of their engagement in such defensive warres according to this notable resolution of Cicero Omnium Societatum nulla est gratior nulla carior quà m ea quae cum Republica est unicuique nostrum Cari sunt pareâ—tes cariliberi propinqui familiares SED OMNES OMNIVM CARITATES PATRIA VNA COMPLEXA EST pro qua quis bonus dubit tâ—mortem oppetere si ei sit prosuturus Qâ—o est detestabilior illorum immanitas qui lacerant omni scelere Patriam nâ—a sunditus delenda occupati sunt fuerunt and seeing kings themselves as well as Subjects are bound to hazard their lives for the preservation of their Kingdomes and peoples safeti and not to endanger the ruine of the Kingdome and people to preserve their owne lives and prerogatives as I have elsewhere manifested it cannot be denyed but that every Subject when the King is unjustly divided against his Kingdome Parliament and People is mere obleiged to joyne with the kingdome Parliament and his Native dearest Countrey who are most considerable against the King than with the king against their and rather in such a case than any other because there is lesse neede of helpe and no such danger of ruine to the whole Realme and Nation when the King joynes with them against forraigne invading enemies as there is when the king himselfe becomes an open intestine Foe unto them against his Oath and Daty and the Peoples safety being the Supremest Law the Houses of Parliament the most Soveraigne Authoritie they ought in such unhappie cases of extremitie and division to oversway all Subjects to contribute their best assistance for their necessary just defence even against the king himself and all his Partisans who take up Hostile Armes against them and not to assist them to ruine their owne Country Kingdome Nation as many as now over-rashly do Fifthly I conceive it cleare Law that if the King himselfe or his Courtiers with him shall wrongfully assault any of his Subjects to wound rob or murther them without just cause that the subjects without any guilt of Treason or Rebellion may not onely in their owne defense resist the King and his Courtiers assaults in such a case and hold their hands as Doctor Ferne himselfe accords but likewise close with and disarme them and if the King or his Courtiers receive any blowes wounds in such a case or be casually slaine it is neither Treason nor Murder in the Defendants who had no Treasonable nor murtherous intention at all in them but onely endeavoured their own just defence attempting nothing at all against the kings lawful Royall authority as is cleare by all Law Cases of man slaughter se defendends and to put this out of question I shall cite but two or three cases of like Nature It hath been very frequent with the Kings of England France and other Princes for triall of their man hood to runne at Iousts and fight at Barriers not onely with forraigners but with their owne valiantest Lâ—rds and Knights of which there are various Examples In these Martiall disports by the very Law of Armâ—s these Subjects have not onely defended themselves against their kings assaults and blowes but retorted lance for lance stroke for stroke and sometimes unborsed disarmed and wounded their Kings our King Henry the eight being like to be slaine by the Earle of Suffolke at a Tilting in the 16. yeare of his reigne and no longer since then the yeare 1559. Henry the 2 d King of France was casually slaine in a loust by the Earle of Mountgommery his Subject whom hee commanded to Iust one bout more with him against his will whose Speare in the counter-blow ran so right into one of the Kings eyes that the shivers of it peirced into his head perished his braine and slew him yet this was Iudged no Treason Fellony nor offence at all in the Earle who had no ill intention If then it hath ever beene reputed lawfull and honourable for Subiects in such militarie exercises upon the challenges of their kings to defend themselves couragiously against their assaults and thus to fight with and encounter them in a martiall manner though there were no necessity for them to answer such a challenge and the casuall wounding or slaying of the King by a Subiect in such a case be neither Treason nor Fellony then much more must it be lawfull by the Law of Armes Nature and the kingdome for the Parliament and subjects in a necessary just unavoydable warre to defend resist repulse the kings and his Cavaleers-personall assaults and returne them blow forblow shot for shot if they will wilfully invade them and if the king or any of his Forces miscarry in this action they must like King Henry the 8 th when endangered by
Tamerlain Emperour of the Tartars denounced warre unto Bajazet King of the Turkes who then besieged Constantinople saying That he was comming to chastise his Tyrannie and to deliver the afflicted people and vanquishing him in battle routed his Army and taking the Tyrant prisoner he kept him in chains in an Iron Cage till he dyed Neither in this case is it materiall that such a vertuous Prince being a stranger proceede against a Tyrant by open force or fiercenesse or else by way of justice True it is that a valient and worthy Prince having the Tyrant in his power shall gaine more honour by bringing him unto his tryall to chastise him as a murtherer a manqueller and a robber rather than to use the Law of Armes against him Wherefore let us resolve on this that it is lawfull for any stranger Prince to kill a Tyrant that is to say a man of all men infamed and notorious for the oppression murder and slaughter of his subjects and people And in this sort our Queene Elizabeth ayded the Low-Countries against the Tyrannie and oppressions of the King of Spaine and the King of Sweden of late yeares the Princes of Germany against the Tyranny and usurpations of the Emperor upon their sollicitation If then it be thus lawfull for Subjects to call in forraigne Princes to releeve them against the Tyrannie and oppressions of their kings as the Barons in King Iohns time prayed in ayde from Philip and Lewis of France against his tyrannie and those Princes in such cases may justly kill depose or judicially condemne these oppressing Kings and put them to death I conceive these whole kingdomes and Parliaments may with farre better reason lesse danger and greater safety to themselvs their Kings and Realmes take up defensive Armes of their owne to repulse their violence For if they may lawfully helpe themselves and vindicate their Liberties from their Kings encroachments by the assistance and Armes of forraigne Princes who have no relation to them nor particular interest in the differences betweene their kings and them which can hardly be effected without subjecting themselves to a forraigne power the death or deposition of the oppressing King much more may they defend and releeve themselves against him by their owne domesticke Forces if they be able by generall consent of the Realme because they have a particular interest and ingagement to defend their owne persons estates liberties which forraigners want and by such domesticke Forces may prevent a forraigne subjection preserve the life of the oppressing Prince and succession of the Crowne in the hereditary line which forraigne Armies most commonly endanger And certainely it is all one in point of Reason State Law Conscience for Subjects to relieve themselves and make a defensive warre against their Soveraigne by forraigne Princes Armes as by their owne and if the first be just and lawfull as all men generally grant without contradiction and Bracton to l. 2. c. 16. I see no colour but the latter must bee just and lawfull too yea then the first rather because lesse dangerous lesse inconvenient to King and Kingdome From Reasons I shall next proceed to punctuall Authorities Not to mention our ancient Brittons taking up of armes by joint consent against their oppressing tyrannizing Kings Aâ—chigallo Emerian and Vortigern whom they both expelled and deposed for their tyranny and mis-government nor our Saxons ray sing defensive Forces against King Sigebert Osfred Ethelred Beornard Coolwulfe and Edwyn who were forcibly expelled and deprived by their Subjects for their bloody cruelties and oppressions which actions the whole Kingdome then and those Historians who recorded them since reputed just and honourable and no Treason nor Rebellion in Law or Conscience being for the Kingdomes necessary preservation and the peoples just defence which Histories I have elsewhere more largely related Nor yet to insist long on the fore-mentioned Barons warre against king Iohn and Henry the 3 d. for regaining establishing preserving Magna Chaâ—ta and other Liberties of the Realme which our Kings had almost utterly deprived them off I shall onely give you some few briefe observations touching these warres to cleare them from those blacke aspersions of Rebellion Treason and the like which some late Historians especially Iohn Speed to flatter those Kings to whom they Dedicated their Histories have cast upon them contrary to the judgement of our ancienter Choniclers and Matthew Paris who generally repute them lawfull and honourable First then consider what opinion the Prelates Barons and Kingdome in generall had of these Warres at first Anno 1414. in a Parliament held at Pauls the 16. yeare of King Iohns raigne Steven Langton Archbishop of Canterbury produced a Charter of King Henry the First whereby he granted the Ancient Liberties of the Kingdome of England which had by his Predecessors beene oppressed with unjust exactions according to the Lawes of King Edward with those emendations which his Father by the counsell of his Barons did ratifie which Charter being read before the Barons they much rejoyced and swore in the presence of the Archbishop that for these Liberties they would if need required spend their blood which being openly done in Parliament they would never have taken such a publike solemne Oath had they deemed a Warre against the King for recovery or defence of these their Liberties unlawfull and no lesse then Treason and Rebellion in point of Law or Conscience After this the Barons assembling at Saint Edmondâ—bury conferred about the said Charter and swore upon the high Altar That if King Iohn refused to confirme and restore unto them those Liberties the Rights of the Kingdome they would make Warre upon him and withdraw themselves from his Allegiance untill he had ratified them all wâ—th his Charter under his great Seale And further agreed after Christmas to Petition him for the same and in the meane time to provide themselves of Horse and Furniture to be ready if the King should start from his Oath made at Winchester at the time of his absolution for confirmation of these Liberties and compell him to satisfie their demand After Christmas they repaire in a Military manner to the King lying in the new Temple urging their desires with great vehemencie the King seeing their resolution and inclination to warre made answer That for the matter they required he would take consideration till after Easter next In the meane time he tooke upon him the Crosse rather through feare then devotion supposing himselfe to bee more safe under that Protection And to shew his desperate malice and wilfulnesse who rather then not to have an absolute domination over his people to doe what he listed would be any thing himselfe under any other that would but support him in his violences he sent an Embassage the most base and impious that ever yet was sent by any free and Christian Prince unto Miramumalim the Moore intituled the great King of Affrica Morocco and Spaine wherein
Anglorum Cruce signatum ET VASALLVM ROMANAE ECCLESIAE an honourable Title indeed for a King pers quuntur molientes ei Regnum auferre which this Pope him selfe did but few yeares before giving his Crown and Kingdome it selfe to King Phillip of France which to save he sordidly resigned up to the Pope quod ad Romanam Ecclesiam dignoscitur pertinere Yet this Excommunication thus procured by bribery proceeding not out of Conscience to preserve the Kings due Rights but selfe-respects to support the Popes usurped interest and Title to the Realme and being a wicked plot of the King more wickedly executed by the Pope who as Matthew Paris writes was AD OMNIA SCELERA pro praemijs datis vel promissis cercus proclivis and the Londoners Barons with divers Prelates then contemning it as pronounced upon false suggestions and especially for this cause that the ordering of temporall affaires belonged not to the Pope Cum Petro Apostolo ejus Successoribus non nisi Ecclesiasticarum dispositio rerum a Domino sit collata potestas And using likewise these memorable Speeches in those blind daies against the Pope and his usurped Supremacy with liberty Vt quid ad nos se extendit Romanorum insatiata cupiditas Quid Episcopis Apostolicis Militiae nostrae Ecce successores Constantini non Petri non imitantur Petrum in meritis vel operibus nec assimulandi sunt in Potestate Prob pudor marcidi ribaldi qui de armis vel literalitate minime norunt jam toti mundo propter excom nunicationes suas volunt dominari ignobiles usurarij Simoniales O quantum dissimules Petro qui sibi Petri usurpant partem c. I conceive this Excommunication rather justifies then disproves the lawfulnesse of this their taking up of armes and the warre insuing it being but for their owne just defence when the King afterwards with fire sword and bloody barbarous Forraigne Forces wasted his Realme in a most inhumane tyrannicall maner Factus de Rege Tyrannus imo in bestialem prorumpens feritatem c. which necessitated the Barons for their own preservation and the Kingdoms devoted by this unnaturall Prince to Vassallage and utter desolation to elect Lewis of France for their King Who together with the Peeres and Estates of France assembled at Lions concerning this Election resolved it to be just and lawfull and the Barons Defensive Warres against and rejection of King Iohn for his Tyranny and oppressions to be just and honourable since they did but flee to these extraordinary remedies and seeke for justice abroad when they were denied it by him that should give it them in as ordinary way at home chosing a King in place of a Tyrant as Matthew Paris with the generall History of France written by Iohn de Serres and Englished by Edward Grimston more largely manifest Secondly the Lawfulnesse and justnesse of the Barons Warres in Defence of Magna Charta with other their Hereditary Rights and Liberties appeares most evidently by the resolution of all those Parliaments summoned by King Henry the 3 d. Edward the 1 0 2. 3. Richard the 2 d. and other our succeeding Kings which have many times even by force of Armes or Menaces and sometimes by faire termes caused these Kings by new Acts of Parliament to ratifie Magnae Charta the Charter of the Forest with other Fundamentall Liberties thus forcibly extorted from King Iohn at first and constrained them to confirme him with their Oathes and solemne publicke Excommunications to be published by the Bishops in their Dioâ—esse twice every yeare oft solemnly vowing and protesting both in and out of Parliament to defend these Lawes and Liberties with their estates armes lives blood which their ancasters had purchased with their blood as I have manifested in the two first parts of this Discourse All which they would no doubt have forborne had they deemed it high Treason or Rebellion in point of Law to take up armes against their Kings in defence or these Lawes and Privileges neither would our Kings and Parliaments in times of Peace have so frequently confirmed these Lawes and Immunities as just and necessary for the peoples welfare had they reputed their former purchases and confirmations by warre and armes no lesse then Treason or Rebellion And if it were neither Treason nor Rebellion in the judgements of our Ancestors and those Parliaments which procured and ratified Magna Charta to take up armes in defence thereof much lesse can it be Treason or Rebellion in the Parliament and Subjects now by Votes by Ordinances of both Houses with force of armes to preserve not only these their hereditarie Charters Lawes Priviledges but their very Lives Estates yea the Privileges and being of Parliaments themselves which are now invaded endangered What opinion the world had of the lawfulnesse of most of the Barons Warres in King Henry the 3 d. his Raigne against this troublesome persidious King in defence of their Lawes Liberties Estates appeares first by the Dialogue betweene Agnellus a Frier minorite one of King Henry his Counsell purposely sent to the Earle Marshall then in armes against the King and this Martiall Earle in the Abbey of Morgan Anno 1233. I will first relate the true state of that Warre and then their Dialogue concerning it King Henry by the ill counsell of Peter Bishop of Winchester removed all his English Officers Counsellors and Servants from his Court and put Poictovines and Forraigners in their places being ruled wholly by them withall he puts the English Garisons out of all his Castles and substitutes Forraigners in them which dayly arived both with Horse and armes in great multitudes and much oppressed the people calling them Traitors so that the power and wealth of the Realme was wholly under their Command The Earle Marshall seeing the Noble and Ignoble thus oppressed and the rights of the Kingdome like utterly to be lost provoked with a zeale of Iustice associating to himselfe other Noble men goes boldly to the King reproves him in the hearing of many For calling in those Poictovines by evill Counsell to the oppression of the Kingdome and of his naturall Subjects and likewise of Lawes and Liberties Humbly beseeching him hastily to correct these excesses which threatned the imminent subversion both of His Crowne and Kingdome which if he refused to doe he and the other Nobles of the Realme would withdraw themselves from his Counsell as long as he harboured those Strangers To which Peter of Winchester replyed That the King might lawfully call in what strangers be would for the Defence of his Kingdome and Crowne and likwise so many and such as might compell his proud and rebellious Subjects to due Obedience Whereupon the Earle Marshall and other Nobles departing discontented from the Court when they could get no other answer promised firmely one to another That for this cause which concerned them all they would manfully fight even to the separation of Soule
the apprehension of such as have beene voted Traytors and Delinquents by Parliament and stand out in contempt against its justice for the defence of the Priviledges and Members of Parliament the Liberties and properties of the subject the fundamentall lawes of the Realme the Protestant Religion now indangered by Papists up in Armes in England and Ireland to extirpate it and the removing ill Counsellors from his Majestie to be no high Treason Rebellion or offence at all against the king but a just and lawful Act the very miscarriages wherof in the generall except in such disorderly Souldiers for whom martiall Law hath provided due punishments deserve a publike pardon both from King and Kingdome And to put this out of Question as no fancie of mine owne we have an expresse Act of Parliament resolving the taking up of Armes by the Queene Prince both but subjects and capable of High Treason in such a case as well as others the Nobles and people of the Realme against these two Spensers and other ill Counsellors about this king in the last yeare of his raigne though the King himself were in their Company and taken prisoner by the Forces raised against them for the necessary preservation reliefe and safety of the Queene Prince Nobles Kingdome to be no high Treason nor offence at all namely the statute of 1 E. 3. c. 1. 2. 3 which I shall recite at large Whereas Hugh Spenser the Father and Hugh Spenser the Sonne late at the suite of Thomas then Earle of Lancaster and Leycester and Steward of England by the common assent and vote of the Peers and Commons of the Realme and by the assent of King Edward Father to our Soveraigne Lord the King that now is AS TRAITORS ENEMIES OF THE KING OF THE REALME were Exiled disinherited and banished out of the Realme for ever And afterward the same Hugh by evill Councell which the king had about him without the assent of the Peeres and Commons of the Realme came againe into the Realme and they with other procured the said king to pursue the said Earle of Lancaster and other great men and people of the Realme in which pursuite the said Earle of Lancaster and other great men and people of the Realme were willingly dead and disinherited and some outlawed banished and disinherited and some disinherited and imprisoned and some ransommed and disherited and after such mischiefe the said Hugh and Hugh Master Robert Baldâ—cke and Edmâ—nd Earle of Arundell usurped to them the Royall power so that the king nothing did nor would doe but as the said Hugh and Hugh Robâ—rt and Edmond Earle of Arundell did councell him were it never so great wrong during which usurpation by duresse and force against the Will of the Commons they purchased Lands as well by fines levied in the Court of the said Edward as otherwise and whereas after the death of the said Earle of Lancaster and other great men our Soveraigne Lord the King that now is and Dame Isabel Queene of England his Mother by the Kings will and Common Councell of the Realme went over to France to treate of peace betweene the two Realmes of England and France upon certaine debates then moved The said Hugh and Hugh Robert and Edmond Earle of Arundell continuing in their mischiefe encouraged the king against our Soveraigne Lord the king that now is his sonne and the said Queene his wife and by royall power which they had to them encroached as afore is said procured so much grievance by the assent of the said King Edward to our Soveraigne Lord the King that now is and the Queene his mother being in so great jeopardy of themselves in a strange Country and seeing the Destruction Dammage Oppressions and Distractions which were notoriously done in the Realme of England upon holy Church Prelates Earles Barons and other great men and the Commonalty by the said Hugh and Hugh Robert and Edmond Earle of Arundell by the encroaching of the said royall power to them to take as good Councell therein as they might And seeing they might not remedie the same unlesse they came into England with an Army of men of warre and by the Grace of God with such puissance and with the helpe of great men and Commons of the Realme they have vanquished and destroyed the sayd Hugh and Hugh Robert and Edmond Wherefore our Soveraigne Lord King Edward that now is at his Parliament holden at Westmiuster at the time of his Coronation the morrow after Candlemas in the first yeare of his reigne upon certaine Petitions and requests made unto him in the said Parliament upon such Articles above rehearsed by the common councell of the Prelates Earles Barons and other great men and by the Commonalty of the Realme there being by his Commandment hath provided ordained and stablished in forme following First that no great man or other of what estate dignity or condition he be that came with the said king that now is and with the Queene his mother into the Realme of England and none other dwelling in England who came with the said king that now is and with the Queene In ayde of them to pursue their said enemies in which pursuite the King his Father was taken and put in ward and yet remaineth in ward shall not be molested impeached or grieved in person or goods in the kings Court or other Court for the pursuite of the said king taking and with holding of his body nor pursuite of any other nor taking of their persons goods nor death of any man or any other things perpetrate or committed in the said pursuite from the day the said king and Queene did arme till the day of the Coronation of the same king and it is not the kings minde that such offenders that committed any trespasse or other offence out of the pursuites should goe quit or have advantage of this statute but they shall be at their answere for the same at the Law Item that the repeale of the said Exile which was made by Dures and force be adâ—ulled for evermore and the said Exile made by award of the Peeres and Commons by the kings assent as before is said shall stand in his strength in all points after the tenure of every particular therein contained Item that the Executors of the Testament of all those that were of the same quarrell dead shall have actions and recover the Goods and Chattels of them being of the said quarrell whose executors they be as they of the same quarrell should c. Certainely here was an higher pursuite and levying warre against the King and his evill Councellors then any yet attempted by this Parliament and a warre rather offensive then defensive in which the king himself was both taken and detained Prisoâ—r and then forced to resigne his Crowne to his sonne yet this is here justified as a necessary just and lawfull warre by an Act of Parliament never yet repealed and all that bare Armes
against the king and his ill Councellors yea they who pursued apprehended and imprisoned the king himselfe are as to this particular discharged by the king and whole Parliament from all manner of guilt of punishment or prosecution whatsoever against them Which consideration makes me somewhat confident that this King and the Parliament held in the 25. yeare of his Raigne ch 2. Which declares it high Treason to levie warre against the King in his Realme did never intend it of a necessary defensive warre against a seduced King and his evill Councellors especially by the Votes of both Houses of Parliament who doubtlesse would never passe any Act to make themselves or their Posteritie in succeeding Parliaments Traytors for taking up meere necessary defensive Armes for their owne and the Kingdomes preservation for that had beene diametraâ—ly contrary to this statute made in the very first yeare and Parliament of this King and would have lâ—yd an aspertion of High Treason upon the king himself the Queene his Mother their own Fathers and many of themselves who thus tooke up Armes and made a defensive kinde of warre upon King â—dward the 2 d taking him prisoner but onely to Rebellious insurrections of private persons without any publick authority of Parliament or the whole Kingdome in generall and of meere offensive warres against the King without any just occasion hostilitie or violence on the Kings part necessitating them to take up defensive Armes which I humbly submit to the judgement of those grand Rabbies and Sages of the Law and the Honorable Houses of Parliament who are best able to resolve and are the onely Iudges to determine this point in controversie by the expresse letter and provision of 25. Ed. 3. ch 2. of Treasons In the first yeare of king Richard the 2 d. John Mercer a Scot with a Navie of Spanish Scottish French ships much infested the Marchants and Coasts of England taking many prises without any care taken by the king Lords or Councell to resist them Whereupon Iohn Philpot a rich Merchant of London diligently considering the defect that I say not treachery of the Duke of I ancaster and other Lords who ought to defend the Realme and grieving to see the oppressions of the people did at his proper charge hire a thousand souldiers and set out a fleete to take the said Mercers ships with the goods he had gotten by Pyracie and defend the Realme of England from such incursions who in a short time tooke Mâ—rcer prisoner with 15. Spanish ships and all the Booties he had gained from the English whereat all the people rejoyced exceedingly commending and extolling Philpot for the great love he shewed to his Countrey and casting out some reproachfull words against the Nobles and Kings councell who had the rule of the kingdome and neglected its defence Whereupon the Nobility Earles and Barons of the Realme conscious of this their negligence and envying Philpoâ— for this his Noble praise-worthy action began not onely secretly to lay snares for him but openly to reproach him saying That it was not lawfull for him to doe such things without the advise or councell of the King and Kingdome quasi non licuisset benefacere Regi VELREGNO sine consilio Comitum Baronum Writes Walsingham as if it were not lawfull to doe good to the King or Kingdome without the advise of the Earles and Barrons or Lords of the Privie Councell To whom objecting these things and especially to Hugh Earle of Stafford who was the chiefe Prolocutor and spake most against it Iohn Philpot gave this answere Know for certaine that I have destinated my money ships and men to sea to this end not that I might deprive you of the good name and honour of your Militia or warlike actions and engrosse it to my selfe but pittying the misery of my Nation and Country which now by your sloathfulnesse of a most Noble kingdome and Lady of Nations is devolved into so great misery that it lyeth open to the pillage of every one of the vilest Nations seeing there is none of you who will put your hand to its defence I have exposed me and mine therefore for the Salvation of my proper Nation and frteing of my Country To which the Earle and others had not a word to reply From this memorable history and discourse which I have translated verbatim out of Walsingham I conceive it most evident that in the default of king and Nobles it is lawfull for the Commons and every particular subject without any Commission from the king or his Councell in times of iminent danger to take up Armes and raise Forces by Sea or Land to defend the king and his Native Country against invading enemies as Philpot did without offence or crime Then much more may the Houses of Parliament the representative body of the whole kingdome and all private Subjects by their Command take up necessary defensive Armes against the kings Popish and Malignant Forces to preserve the king Kingdome Parliament People from spoyle and ruine In the 8. yeare of King Richard the 2 d. there arose a great difference betweene the Duke of Lancaster the king his young complices who conspired the Dukes death agreeing sodainely to arrest and arraigne him before Robert Trisilian Chiefe Iustice who boldly promised to passe sentence against him according to the quality of the crimes objected to him Vpon this the Duke having private intelligence of their treachery to provide for his owne safety wisely withdrew himselfe and posted to his Castle at Ponfract storing it with Armes and Victualls Hereupon not onely a private but publicke discord was like to ensue but by the great mediation and paines of Ione the kings mother an accord and peace was made betweene them and this defence of the Duke by fortifying his Castle with Armes against the King and his ill instruments for his owne just preservation held no crime If such a defence then were held just and lawfull in one particular Subject and Peere of the land onely much more must it be so in both Houses of Parliament and the Kingdome in case the Kings Forces invade them In the 10 th yeare of King Richard the second this unconstant king being instigated by Michael de la Pole Robert Vâ—ere Duke of Ireland Alexander Nevill ARchbishop of Yorke Robert Trysilian and other ill Councellors and Traytors to the kingdome endeavoured to seize upon the Duke of Glocester the Earles of Arundell Warwicke Derby Notingham and others who were faithfull to the kingdome and to put them to death having caused them first to be indighted of High Treason at Nottingham Castle and hired many Souldiers to surprise them Hereupon these Lords for their owne just defence raised Forces and met at Harynggye Parke with a numerous Army whereat the King being much perplexed advised what was best for him to do The Archbishop of Yorke and others of his ill Councell advised him to gee forth and give
them battle but his wisest councellors disswaded him affirming that the King should gaine no benefit if hee vanquished them and should sustaine great dishonour and losse if he were conquered by them In the meane time Hugh Linne an old Souldier who had lost his senses and was reputed a foole comming in to the Councell the King demanded of him in jest what hee should doe against the Nobles met together in the said Parke who answered Let us goe forth and assault them and slay every mothers sonne of them and by the eyes of God this being finished THOU HAST SLAINE ALL THE FAITHFVLL FRIENDS THOU HAST IN THE KINGDOME Which answere though uttered foolishly yet wise men did most of all consider At last is was resolved by the mediators of Peace that the Lords should meete the King at Westminster and there receive an answere to the things for which they tooke Armes thither they came strongly Armed with a great guard for feare of ambuscadoes to intrap them where the Chauncellour in the Kings name spake thus to them My Lords our Lord the King hearing that you were lately assembled at Harenggye Parke in an unusuall manner would not rush upon you as he might have easily done had he not had care of you and those who were with you because no man can doubt if he had raised an Army he would have had many more men than you and pâ—rchance much blood of men had beene spilt which the King doth most of all abhorre and therefore assuming to himselfe patience and mildnesse he hath made choyce to convent you peceably and to tell him the reason why yoy have assâ—mbled so many men To which the Lords answered That THEY HAD MET TOGETHER FOR THE GOOD OF THE KING AND KINGDOME AND THAT THEY MIGHT PVLL AWAY THOSE TRAITORS FROM HIM WHICH HE CONTINVALLY DET AINED WITH HIM The Traytors they appealed were the foresaid ill Councellors and Nicholas Brambre the false London Knight and to prove this appeale of them true casting down their gloves they said they would prosecute it by Duell The King answered This shall not be done now but in the next Parliament with we appoint to be the morrow after the Purification of the blessed Virgin to which as well you as they comming shall receive satisfaction in all things according to Law The Lords for their owne safety kept together till the Parliament and in the meane timed feated the Forces of the Duke of Ireland raised privately by the Kings Command to surprise them The Parliament comming on the 11. yeare of Richard the second these ill councellors were therein by speciall Acts attainted condemned of High Treason and some of them executed and these defensive Armes of the Lords for their owne and the Kingdomes safety adjudged and declared to be no Treason but a thing done to the honour of God and Salvation of the King and his Realme witnesse the expresse words of the Printed Act of 11 R. 2. c. 1. which I shall transcribe Our Soveraigne Lord the King amongst other Petitions and requests to him made by the Commons of his said Realme in the said Parliament hath received one Petition in the forme following The Commons prayed that whereas the last Parliament for cause of the great and horrible mischiefes and perills which another time were fallen BY EVILL GOVERNANCE WHICH WAS ABOVT THE KINGS PERSON by all his time before by Alexander late Archbishop of Yorke Robert de Veere late Duke of Ireland Michael de la Pole late Earle of Suffolk Rober Trisilian late Iustice and Nicholas Brambre Knight with other their adherents and others Whereby the King and all his Realme were very nighâ— to have beene wholly undone and destroyed and for this cause and to eschew such perils and mischiefes for the time to come a certaine statute was made in the same Parliament with a Commission to diverse Lords for the weale honour and safeguard of the King his regalty and of all the Realme the tenour of which Commission hereafter followeth Richard c. as in the Act. And thereupon the said Alexander Robert Mighill Robert and Nicholas and their said adherents seeing that their said evill governance should be perceived and they by the same cause more likely to be punished by good justice to be done and also their evill deedes and purposes before used to be disturbed by the sayd Lords assigned by commission as afore made conspired purposed divers horrible Treasons and evils against the King and the said Lords so assigned and against all the other Lords and Commons which were assenting to the making of the said Ordinance and Commission in destruction of the king his Regalty and all his Realme Whereupon Thomas Duke of Glocester the kings Vncle Richard Earle of Arundle and Thomas Earle of Warwicke perceiving the evill purpose of the sayd Traytors did assemble themselves in forcible manner for the safety of their persons to shew and declare the said Treasons and evill purposes and thereof to set remedie as God would and came to the Kings presence affirming against the said 5. Traytors appealed of High Treason by them done to the King and to his Realme upon which appeale the king our Soveraigne Lord adjourned the said parties till this present Parliament and did take them into his safe protection as in the record made upon the same appeale fully appeareth And afterwards in great Rebellion and against the said protection the said Traytors with their said adherents and others aforesaid continuing their evill purpose some of them assembled a great power by letters and Commission from the King himselfe as Walsingham and others write to have destroyed the said Duke and Earles appellants and other the kings lawfull leige people and to accomplish their Treasons and evill purposes aforesaid Whereupon the said Duke of Glocester Henry Earle of Darby the sayd Earles of Arundell and Warwicke and Thomas Earle Marshall seeing the open Destruction of the King and all his Realme if the said evill purposed Traitors and their adherents were not disturbed which might not otherwise have beene done but with strong hand for the weale and safeguard of the King our Soveraigne Lord and of all his Realme did assemble them forcibly and rove and pursued till they had disturbed the said power gathered by the said Traytors and their adherents aforesaid which five Traytors be attainted this present Parliament of the Treasons and evills aforesaid at the suite and appeale of the said Duke of Glocester Earles of Darby Arundle Warwicke and Marshall That it would please our redoubled Soveraigne Lord the King to accept approve and affirme in this present Parliament all that was done in the last as afore and as much as hath beene done since the last Parliament by force of the statute Ordinance or Commission aforesaid and also All that the said Duke of Glocester Earles of Arundell and Wâ—rwicke did and that the same Duke and Earles and the said Earles of Derby and Marshall or any
the honour of God the Salvation of the King for if the Kingdome perish or miscarry the king as king must needs perish with it the maintenance of his Crowne supported onely by the maintenance of the kingdomes welfare and the Salvation and common profit of all the Realm and this being one of the first solemne judgements if not the very first given in Parliament after the making of the statute of 25 E. 3. which hath relation to its clause of levying war must certainely be the best exposition of that Law which the Parliament onely ought to interpret as is evident by the statute of 21. R. 2. c. 3. It is ordained and stablished that every man which c. or he that raiseth the people and riseth against the King to make warre within his Realme and of that be duly attainted and judged in the Parliament shall be judged as a Traytor of High Treason against the Crowne and other forecited Acts and if this were no Treason nor Rebellion nor Trespasse in the Barons against the king or kingdome but a warre for the honour of God the salvation of the king the maintenance of his Crowne the safety and common profit of all the Realme much more must our Parliaments present defensive warre against his Majesties ill Councellors Papists Malignants Delinquents and men of desperate fortunes risen up in Armes against the Parliament Lawes Religion Liberties the whole Kingdomes peace and welfare be so too being backed with the very same and farre better greater authority and more publike reasons then their warre was in which the safety of Religion was no great ingredient nor the preservation of a Parliament from a forced dissolution though established and perpetuated by a publike Law King Henry the 4 th taking up Armes against King Richard and causing him to be Articled against and judicially deposed in and by Parliament for his Male-administration It was Enacted by the Statute of 1. Hen 4. cap. 2. That no Lord Spirituall nor Temporall nor other of what estate or condition that he be which came with King Henry into the Realme of England nor none other persons whatsoever they be then dwelling within the same Realme and which came to this King in aide of him to pursue them which were against the Kings good intent and the COMMON PROFIT OF THE REALME in which pursuit Richard late King of England the second after the Conquest was pursued taken and put in Ward and yet remaineth in Ward be impeached grieved nor vexed in person nor in goods in the Kings Court nor in none other Court for the pursuites of the said King taking and with-holding of his body nor for the pursuits of any other taking of persons and cattells or of the death of a man or any other thing done in the said pursuite from the day of the said King that now is arived till the day of the Coronation of Our said Soveraigne Lord Henry And the intent of the King is not that offendors which committed Trespasses or other offences out of the said pursuits without speciall warrant should be ayded nor have any advantage of this Statute but that they be thereof answerable at the Law If those then who in this offensive Warre assisted Henry the 4 th to apprehend and depose this persidious oppressing tyrannicall king seduced by evill Counsellors and his owne innate dis-affection to his naturall people deserved such an immunity of persons and goods from all kinds of penalties because though it tended to this ill kings deposition yet in their intentions it was really for the common profit of the Realme as this Act defines it No doubt this present defensive Warre alone against Papists Delinquents and evill Counsellors who have miserably wasted spoiled sacked many places of the Realme and fired others in a most barbarous maner contrary to the Law of Armes and Nations and labour to subvert Religion Laws Liberties Parliaments and make the Realm a common Prey without any ill intention against his Majesties Person or lawfull Royall Authority deserves a greater immunity and can in no reasonable mans judgement be interpreted any Treason or Rebellion against the king or his Crowne in Law or Conscience In the 33. yeare of king Henry the 6 th a weake Prince wholly guided by the Queene and Duke of Somerset who ruled all things at their wills under whose Government the greatest part of France was lost all things went to ruine both abroad and at home and the Queene much against the Lords and Peoples mindes preferring the Duke of Sommerset to the Captain ship of Calice the Commons and Nobility were greatly offended thereat saying That he had lost Normandy and so would he doâ— Calice Hereupon the Duke of Yorke the Earles of Warwicke and Salisbury with other their adherents raised an Army in the Marches of Wales and Marched with it towards London to suppresse the Duke of Sommerset with his Faction and reforme the Governement The king being credibly informed hereof assembled his Host and marching towards the Duke of Yorke and his Forces was encountred by them at Saint Albanes notwithstanding the kings Proclamation to keepe the Peace where in a set Battell the Duke of Somerset with divers Earles and 800. others were slaine on the kings part by the Duke of Yorke and his companions and the kingâ—â— a manner defeate The Duke after this Victory obtained remembring that he had oftentimes declared and published abroad The onely cause of this War to be THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE PUBLIKE WEALE and TO SET THE REALME IN A MORE COMMODIOVS STATE and BETTER CONDITION Vsing all lenity mercy and bounteousnesse would not once touch or apprehend the body of King Henry whom he might have slaine and utterly destroyed considering that hee had him in his Ward and Governance but with great honour and due reverence conveyed him to London and so to Westminster where a Parliament being summoned and assembled soone after It was therein Enacted That no person should either judge or report any point of untruth of the Duke of Yorke the Earles of Salisbury and Warwicke For comming in Warlike manner against the King at Saint Albanes Considering that their attempt and enterprise Was onely to see the Kings Person in Safeguard and Sure-keeping and to put and Alien from Him the publike Oppressors of the Common wealth by whose misgovernance his life might be in hazard and his Authority hang on a very small Thred After this the Duke and these Earles raised another Army for like purpose and their owne defence in the 37 and 38 yeares of H. 6. for which they were afterwards by a packed Parliament at Coventree by their Enemies procurement Attainted of high Treason and their Lands and Goods confiscated But in the Parliament of 39. H. 6. cap. 1. The said attainder Parliament with all Acts and Statutes therein made were wholly Reversed Repealed annulled as being made â—y the excitation and procurement of seditious ill disposed Persons for the
accomplishment of their owne Rancor and Covetousnesse that they might injoy the Lands Offices Possessions and Goods of the lawfull â—ords and liege People of the King and that they might finally destroy the laid lawfull Lords and Liege People and their Issues and Heires for ever as now the Kings ill Counsellors and hungry Cavalleers seek to destroy the Kings faithfull Liege Lords and People that they may gaine their Lands and Estates witnesse the late intercepted Leâ—ter of Sir Iohn Brooks giving advise to thus purpose to his Majestie and this Assemblâ— was declared to be no lawful Parliament but a devillish Counsell which desired more the destruction then advancement of the Publike weale and the Duke Earles with their assistants were restored and declared to be Faithful and Lawful Lords and Faithful liege People of the Realme of England who alwaies had great and Fathfull Love to the Preferrement and Surety of the Kings Person according to their Duty If then these two Parliaments acquitted these Lords and their companions thus taking up Armes from any the least guilt of Treason and rebellion against the King because they did it onely for the advancement of the publike weale the setting the Realme in a better condition the removing ill Counsellors and publike oppressors of the Realme from about the King and to rescue his person out of their hands then questionlesse by their resolutions our present Parliaments taking up defensive armes upon the selfe-same grounds and other important causes and that by consent of both Houses which they wanted can be reputed no high Treason nor Rebellion against the King in point of Law and no just no rationall Iudge or Lawyer can justly averre the contrary against so many forecited resolutions in Parliament even in printed Acts. The Earle of Richmund afterward King Henry the seventh taking up armes against Richard the third a lawfull King defacto being crowned by Parliament but an Vsurper and bloody â—yrant in Verity to recover his Inheritance and Title to the Crowne and ease the Kingdome of this unnaturall blood-thirsty Oppressor before his fight at Boswell Field used this Oration to his Souldiers pertinent to our purpose If ever God gave victory to men fighting in a just quarrell or if he ever aided such as made warre for the wealth and tuition of their owne naturall and nutritive Countrey or if he ever succoured them which adventured their lives for the reliefe of Innocents suppression of malefactors and apparent Offenders No doubt my Fellowes and Friends but he of his bountifull goodnesse will this day send us triumphant victory and a lucky revenge over our proud Enemies and arrogant adversaries for if you remember and consider the very cause of our just quarrel you shall apparently perceive the same to be true godly and vertuous In the which I doubt not but God will rather ayde us yea and fight for us then see us vanquished and profligate by such as neither feare him nor his Lawes nor yet regard Iustice and honesty Our cause is so just that no enterprise can be of more vertue both by the Laws Divine and Civill c. If this cause be not just and this quarrell godly let God the giver of victory judge and determine c. Let us therefore fight like invincible Gyants and set on our enemies like untimorous Tygers and banish all feare like tamping Lyons March forth like strong and robustious Champions and begin the battaile like hardy Conquerors the Battell is at hand and the Victory approacheth and if wee shamefully recule or cowardly fly we and all our sequele be destroyed and dishonoured for ever This is the day of gaine and this is the time of losse get this dayes victory and be Conquerours and lose this dayes battell and bee villaines And therefore in the name of God and Saint George let every man couragiously advance his standard They did so slew the Tyrannicall Vsurper wonne the Field And in the first Parliament of his Raigne there was this Act of indemnity passed That all and singular persons comming with him from beyond the Seas into the Realme of England taking his party and quarrell in recovering his just Title and Right to the Realme of England shall be utterly discharged quit and unpunishable for ever by way of action or otherwise of or for any murther slaying of men or of taking and disporting of goods or any other trespasses done by them or any of them to any person or persons of this his Realme against his most Royall Person his Banner displayed in the said field and in the day of the said field c. Which battell though it were just and no Treason nor Rebellion in point of Law in those that assiâ—ted King Henry the 7 th against this Vsurper yet because the killing of men and seising their goods in the time of Warre is against the very fundamentall Lawes of the Realme they needed an Act of Parliament to discharge them from suits and prosecutions at the Law for the same the true reason of all the forecited Acts of this nature which make no mention of pardoning any Rebellions or Treasons against the King for they deemed their forementioned taking up of Armes no such offences but onely discharge the Subjects from all suites actions and prosecutions at Law for any killing or slaying of men batteries imprisonments robberies and trespasses in seising of Persons Goods Chattels What our Princes and State have thought of the lawfulnesse of necessary Defensive sive Warres of Subjects against their oppressing Kings and Princes appeares by those aides and succours which our Kings in former ages have sent to the French Flemmings Almaines and others when their Kings and Princes have injuriously made Warres upon them and more especially by the publike ayde and assistance which our Queene Elizabeth and King James by the publike advise and consent of the Realme gave to the Protestants in France Germany Bohemia and the Netherlands against the King of France the Emperour and King of Spaine who oppressed and made Warre upon them to deprive them of their just Liberties and Religion of which more hereafter Certainely had their Defensive Warres against their Soveraigne Princes to preserve their Religion Liberties Priviledges beene deemed Treason Rebellion in point of Law Queene Elizabeth King James and our English State would never have so much dishonoured themselves nor given so ill an example to the world to Patronize Rebells or Traitours or enter into any solemne Leagues and Covenants with them as then they did which have been frequently renued and continued to this present And to descend to our present times our King Charles himself hath not onely in shew at least openly aided the French Protestants at Ree and Rochel against their King who warred on them the Germane Princes against the Emperour the Hollanders and Prince of Orange to whose Sonne hee hath married his elstest Daughter against the Spaniard and entred into a solemne League with them which hee could
not have done in point of Law Iustice Honour Conscience had they beene Rebells or Traytors for standing on their guards and making defensive Warres onely for their owne and their Religions preservation but likewise by two severall publike Acts of Parliament the one in England the other in Scotland declaring the Scots late taking up Armes against him and his evill Counsellors in defence of their Religion Lawes Priviledges to be no Treason nor Rebellion and them to bee his true and loyall Subjects notwithstanding all aspertions cast upon them by the Prelaticall and Popish Party because they had no ill or disloyall intention at all against his Majesties Person Crowne and Dignity but onely a care of their owne preservation and the redresse of thâ—se Enormities Pressures grievances in Church and State which threatned desolation unto both If then their seizing of the Kings Fortes Ammunition Revenues and raising an Army for the foresaid ends hath by his Majesty himselfe and his two Parliaments of England and Scotland beene resolved and declared to be no Treason no Rebellion at all against the King by the very same or better reason all circumstances duely pondered our Parliaments present taking up Armes and making a Defensive Warre for the endes aforesaid neither is nor can be adjudged Treason or Rebellion in point of Law or Iustice In fine the King himself in his Answer to the 19. Propositions of both Houses Iune 3. 1642. Confesseth and calleth God to witnesse That all the Rights of his Crowne are vested in him for his Subjects sake That the Prince may not make use of his high and perpetuall power to the hurt of those for whose good he hath it nor make use of the name of publike Necessity for the gaine of his private Favourites and Followers to the detriment of his people That the House of Commons may impeach those who for their owne ends though countenanced with any surreptitiously gotten Command of the King have violated that Law which he is bound when he knowes it to protect and to protection of which they were bound to advise him at least Not to serve him in the Contrary let the Cavalleers and others consider this and the Lords being trusted with a Iudiciary power are an excellent screene and banke betweene the King and people to assist each against any Incroachments of the other and by just Iudgements to preserve that Law which ought to be the Rule of every one of the three Therefore the power Legally placed in both Houses Being more then sufficient to prevent and restraine the power of Tyranny by his Majesties owne Confession it must needs be such a power as may legally inable both Houses when Armes are taken up against them by the King or any other to subvert Lawes Liberties Religion and introduce an Arbitrary government not onely to make Lawes Ordinances and Assessements but likewise to take up Armes to defend and preserve themselves their Lawes Liberties religion and to prevent restraine all forces raysed against them to set up Tyranny else should they want not onely a more then sufficient but even a sâ—fficient necessary power to prevent and restraine the power of Tyranny which being once in armes cannot bee restraned and prevented repulsed with Petitions Declarations Lawes Ordinances or any Paper Bulwarkes and Fortifications or other such probable or possible meanes within the Parliaments power but onely by Armes and Militarie Forces as reason and experience in all Ages manifest From all which pregnant punctuall domesticke Authorities and resolutions of Ancient Moderne and present times I presume I may infallibly conclude That the Parliaments present taking up necessary Defensive Armes is neither Treason nor Rebellion in iudgement of Law but a iust and lawfull Act for the publicke benefit and preservation of King Kingdome Parliament Lawes Liberties Religion and so neither their Generall Souldiers nor any person whatsoever imployed by them in this War or contributing any thing towards its maintenance are or can be Legally indicted prosecuted or in any manner proceeded against as Traitors Rebels Delinquents against the King or Kingdome and that all Proclamations Declarations Indictments or proceedings against them or any of them as Traitors Rebels or Delinquents are utterly unlawfull iniust and ought to be reversed as meere Nullities It would be an infinite tedious labour for me to relate what Civilians and Canonists have written concerning Warre and what Warre is just and lawfull what not In briefe they all generally accord That no Warre may or ought to be undertaken cut of covetousnesse lust ambition cruelty malice desire of hurt revenge or for booty propter praedam enim militare peccatum est Whence Joh Baptist Luke 3. 14. gave this answer to the Souldiers who demanded of him what shall we doe Doe violence to no man neither accuse any man falsly and be content with your wages Ne dum sumptus quaeritur praedo grassetur Which prooves the Warres of our plundring pillaging Cavalleers altogether sinnefull and unjust And that such a Warre onely is just which is waged for the good and necessary defence of the Common-wealth by publike Edict or consent or to regaine some thing which is unjustly detained or taken away and cannot otherwise be acquired or to repell or punish some injury or to curbe the insolency of wicked men or preserve good men from their uniust oppressions which Warres ought onely to be undertaken out of a desire of Peace as they prove out of Augustine Gregory Isidor Hispalensis and others In one word they all accord That a necessary defensive Warre to repulse an Injury and to preserve the State Church Republike Freedomes Lives Chastities Estates Lawes Liberties Religion from unjust violence is and ever hath beene lawfull by the Law of Nature of Nation yea By all Lawes whatsoever and the very dictate of Reason And that aâ—nâ—cessary defensive Warre is not properly a Warre but a meere Defence against an unlawfull Violence And therâ—fore mâ—st of necessitie be acknowledge lawfull because directly opposite to and the onely remedy which Gâ—d and Nature have giuen men against Tâ—rannicall and unjust invasions which are both sâ—â—nâ—full and unlawfull And so can be no Treason no Rebellion no crime at all thouâ—â— our Princes or Parents be the unjust assailâ—nts Of which see more in Hugo Groâ—ius de Iure Belli l. 2. c. 1. I shall close up the Civillians and Câ—noâ—â—â—s Opinions touching the lawfulnesse of a Defensive Warre with the words oâ— Aâ—bericâ—â—â—entilis Professor of Civill Law in the Vniversitie of Oxford in Queene Elizabeths Raigne Who in his learned Booke De Jure Belli Pacis Dedicated to the most illustrious Robert Devoreux Earle of Essex Father to the Parliaments present Lord Generall determines thus Lib. 1. caâ— 13 pag. 92. c. Although I say there be no cause of warre from nature yet there are causes for which we undertake warre by the conduct of nature as is the cause of Defence and when warre is
persons If any king shall unjustly assault the persons of any private Subjects men or women to violate their lives or chastities over which they have no power I make no doubt that they may and ought to bee resisted repulsed even in point of conscience but not slaine though many kings have lost their lives upon such occasions as Rodoaldus the 8. king of Lumbardy Anno 659. being taken in the very act of adultery by the adulteresses husband was slaine by him without delay and how kings attempting to murther private Subjects unjustly have themselves beene sometimes wounded and casually slaine is so rise in stories that I shall forbeare examples concluding this with the words of Iosephus who expressely writes That the King of the Israelites by Gods expresse Law Deut. 17. was to doe nothing without the consent of the high Priest and Senate nor to multiply money and horses over much which might easily make him a contemner of the Lawes and if he addicted himselfe to these things more than was fitting HE WAS TO BE RESISTED least he became more powerfull then was expedient for their affaires To these Authorities I shall onely subjoyne these 5. undeniable arguments to justifie Subjects necessary defensive wars to be lawful in point of conscience against the persons and Forces of their injuriously invading Soveraignes First it is granted by all as a truth irrefragable that kings by Force of Armes may justly with safe conscience resist repulse suppresse the unlawfull warlike invasive assaults the Rebellious armed Insurrections of their Subjects upon these two grounds because they are unlawfull by the Edicts of God and man and because kings in such case have no other meanes left to preserve their Royall persons and just authoritie against offensive armed Rebellions but offensive armes Therefore Subjâ—cts by the selfe-same grounds may justly with safe consciences resist repulse suppresse the unjust assayling military Forces of their kings in the case fore-stated though the king himselfe be personally present and assistant because such a war is unlawfull by the resolution of God and men and against the oath the duty of kings and because the subjects in such cases have no other meanes left to preserve their persons lives liberties estates religion established government from certaine ruin but defensive Armes There is the selfe same reason in both cases being relatives therefore the selfesame Law and Conscience in both Secondly It must be admitted without debate that this office of highest and greatest trust hath a condition in Law annexed to it by Littletons owne resolution to wit that the King shall well and truely preserve the Realme and do that which to such Office belongeth which condition our king by an expresse oath to all his people solemnely taken at their Coronation with other Articles expressed in their oath formerly recited is really bound both in Law and Conscience exactly to performe being admitted and elected king by the peoples suffrages upon solemne promise to observe the same condition to the uttermost of his power as I have a elsewhere cleared Now it is a cleare case resolved by Marius Salomonius confirmed at large by Rebussus by 12. unanswerable reasons the Authorities of sundry Civill Lawyers and Canonists quoted by hiâ— agreed by Albericus Gentiles and Hugo Grotius who both largely dispute it That Kings as well as Subjects are really bound to performe their Covenants Contracts Conditions especially those they make to all their Subjects and ratifie with an Oath since God himselfe who is most absolute is yet mostf firmly oblieged by his Oathes and Covenants made to his despicable vile ereatures sinfull men and never violates them in the least degree If then these conditions and Oathes be firme and obligatory to our kings if they will obstinately breake them by violating their Subjects Lawes Liberties Properties and making actuall warre upon them the condition and Oath too would be meerely voyde ridiculous absur'd an high taking of the Name of God in vaine yea a plaine delusion of the people if the whole State or people in their owne defence might not justly take up Armes to resist their kings and their malignant Forces in these persidious violations of trust conditions oaths and force them to make good their oath and covenants when no other means will induce them to it Even as the Subjects oath of homage and allegiance would be meerely frivilous if kings had no meanes nor coercive power to cause them to observe these oathes when they are apparently broken and many whole kingdomes had been much over seene in point of Policie or prudence in prescribing such conditions and oaths unto their kings had they reserved no lawfull power at all which they might lawfully exercise in point of conscience to see them really performed and duely redressed when notoriously transgressed through wilfulnesse negligence or ill pernicious advice Thirdly when any common or publick trust is committed to three or more though of subordinate and different quality if the trust be either violated or betrayed the inferiour trustees may and ought in point of Conscience to resist the other For instance if the custody of a City or Castle be committed to a Captaine Leutenant and common Souldiers or of a ship to the Master Captaine and ordinary Mariners If the Captaine or Master will betray the City Castle or ship to the enemie or Pirates or dismantle the City wals and fortifications to expose it unto danger or will wilfully run the ship against a rocke to split wrecke it and indanger all their lives freedomes contrary to the trust reposed in them or fire or blow up the City Fort ship not onely the Leiutenant Masters Mate and other inferiour Officers though subject to their commands but even the Common Souldiers and Marriners may withstand and forcibly resist them and are bound in Conscience so to doe because else they should betray their trust and destroy the City Fort ship and themselves too which they are bound by duty and compact to preserve This case of Law and conscience is so cleare so common in daily experience that no man doubts it The care and safety of our Realme by the originall politicke constitution of it alwayes hath beene and now is committed joyntly to the king the Lords and Commons in Parliament by the unanimous consent of the whole kingdome The king the supreame member of it contrary to the trust and duty reposed in him through the advise of evill Councellors wilfully betrayes the trust and safety of this great City and ship of the Republicke invades the inferiour Commanders Souldiours Citizens with an Army assaults wounds slayes spoyles plunders sackes imprisons his fellow trustees Souldiers Marriners Citizens undermines the walls fires the City ship delivers it up to theeves Pyrates murtherers as a common prey and wilfully runnes this ship upon a rocke of ruin If the Lords and Commons joyntly intrusted with him should not in this case by
their cruelties oppressions impieties Seventhly the Apostle hereupon concludes Vers 5. Wherefore you must of necessity be subject not onely for wrath but also for conscience sake This conclusion as the word Wherefore demonstrates being inferred from the premised reasons extending onely to extends to all civill Magistrates as well inferiour and subordinate as superiour and many sticke not to straine it even to Ecclesiasticall ones So Origen Ambrose Hierome Remigius Theodulus Chrysostome Theodoret Primasius Haymo Rabanus Maurus Theophylact Oecumenius Haymo Aquinas Anselm Lyra Bruno Gorran Hugo de Sancto Victore Tostatus Luther Calvin Erasmus Melanchthon Gualther Musculus Bucer Hemingius Ferus Fayus Soto Alexander Alesius Peter Martyr Pareus Beza Piscator Zuinglius Tollet Willet Wilson Nacclantus Snecanus Vignerius Wenerichius Winckelman Estius Faber Cornelius a Lapide Salmeron Catharinus Guilliandus Adam Sasbout with sundry others This then being irrefragable hereby it is most apparent First that no resistance of the higher powers is here prohibited but onely in the due and legall execution of their offices For if any inferiour Officers illegally indeavour to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties and unrightly governe the people they may lawfully be resisted by them For example if a Maior Justice of Peace Constable or other officer extravagating from the common course of Law and Justice shall with force of armes in a riotous manner assault any private man or the whole Citie or Village where he lives to beate wound kill plunder dispossesse the inhabitants of their houses goods franchises or assault them on the highway side to take away their purses in these and such like cases both in point of Law and conscience he may not onely be forcibly resisted but repulsed apprehended battered if not lawfully slaine by the people and proceeded against as a delinquent The reason is because these illegall unjust actions are not onely besides without their Commissions but directly contrary to their offices and the Lawes which never gave them authority to act such injustice yet they are higher Powers ordained of God within this Text and no way to be resisted in the due execution of their Offices according to Law If then these inferiour Officers may be thus forcibly resisted repulsed notwithstanding this Text in such cases as these then by the selfe same reason Kings and Emperours may bee thus resisted too since the Text extends indifferently to them both Let then the objectors take their choyce either affirme that no inferiour lawfull Officers whatsoever may be forcibly resisted by the people or repulsed arraigned censured for their misdemeanour by vertue of this Text which would bring an absolute Tyranny Anarchy and confusion presently into the world and make every Constable as great a Tyrant Monarch as the grand Emperor of the Turks or else confesse that this Text condemnes not such resistance even of Kings and Princes when they forcibly war upon their Subjects to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties and ruine the republike since it makes no distinction at all betweene the ones power and the others but equally enjoynes subjection prohibits resistance unto both and that onely in just administration of their severall authorities not in the arbitrary unjust prosecutions of their wils and lusts Secondly it followes that the Kings Souldiers Cavaliers and Forces now raised against Law and armed onely with illegall Commissions voyd in Law as I have proved are none of the high powers ordained of God nor lawfull Rulers or Magistrates within the meaning of this Scripture and so the forcible resisting of them and of the Kings illegall commands and designes executed by them is no resistance of the higher powers here prohibited Thirdly that the Houses of Parliament being in truth the highest powers ordained of God in this Realme and their just legall Ordinances Votes Forces for the necessary defence of Lawes Liberties Religion against the Kings ill Counsellors and Malignant Popish Forces neither may nor ought in conscience to be resisted by the King himselfe or any of his Subjects Souldiers under the perill of that damnation mentioned in this Chapter For the second Whether the Roman Emperor in Pauls time was the highest Soveraign power in the Roman State or not It is taken for granted by Doctor Ferne and other opposites that he was as a thing past doubt the Senate and people as they say having resigned up their power to the Emperour But this no doubt is a grosse errour which I have largely refuted in the Appendix and therefore shall be the briefer here derived from some civill Lawyers who out of Justinian Digest lib. 2. Tet. 2. and Instit Tit. 2. falsly affirme that Lege Regia by the regall Law the Senate and people transferred all their Empire and power unto the Emperour For first the Senate and people as Albericus Gentilis well observes did not by this Law give the Emperour all power and command to dispose of them or the lands and revenues of the Empire as he pleased but onely to governe them according to their Lawes as men not to slay and alienate them as beasts Thus reason dictates so the words of the Law sound Divines are deceived Lawyers flatter who perswade that all things are lawfull to Princes and that their power is highest and free It is ridiculous to affirme that absolute power over the subjects belongs to Popes which belongs not to the Emperours themselves over the Italians from whom they derive it Imagine therefore that the Emperour had a power never so free yet it is not of dominion but of administration And he who hath but a free administration hath not the power of donation e A gardian is then reputed in stead of a Lord cum tutelam administrat non cum pupillum spoliat when he rightly administers his tutelage not when he spoyles his pupill So Gentilis If then the Emperours had onely a free legall administration not an absolute dominion granted them by the people then this soveraigne power still resided in the Senate and people as Justinian Digest lib. 1. Tit. 2. De Origine Juris will sufficiently manifest Secondly John Bodin a learned Civilian clearely proves That the Roman Emperors were at the first nothing else but Princes of the Commonweale The SOVERAIGNTY NEVERTHELESSE STILL RESTING IN THE PEOPLE and THE SENATE So that this Common-wealth was then to have beene called a Principality although that Seneca speaking in the person of Nero his Scholler saith I am the onely man amongst living men elect and chosen to be the Lieutenant of God upon earth I am the Arbitratour of life and death I am able of my pleasure to dispose of the state and quality of every man True it is that he tooke upon him this Soveraigne authority by force wrested from the people and Senate of Rome therefore not freely given him by any Law but IN RIGHT HE HAD IT NOT the State being but a very principalitie WHEREIN THE PEOPLE HAD THE SOVERAIGNTY In which case THERE IS
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
prohibiting but allowing it and these Fathers producing no one text which truly condemnes it this being the very summe of their words That though 〈◊〉 Christians were exceeding many in number of strength and power abundantly sufficient to defend themselves in a warlike manner against their persecuters and had full liberty and no restraint upon them in point of Conscience either to withstand their persecutors with Armes or to withdraw themselves from under the jurisdiction of their persecuters into remote parts to the great weakning and losse of the State yet such was their patience innocency and desire of Martyrdome that they resisted not their Adversaries with force nor retired nor fled away from under their obedience but cheerfully without the least resistance by word deed or thought yeelded up their Bodies Liberties Lives to the cruelties of their Enemies to obtaine that Crowne of Martyrdome which they desired and to offer up themselves a voluntary freewill oblation to the Lord who would certainly avenge all their wrongs This is the sum of all these Authorities which evidence resistance lawfull in it selfe and to these Christians too in their owne judgements and resolutions though the desire of Martyrdome made them freely to forbeare it These Examples and Authorities therefore abundantly corroborate and no wayes impeach our cause Thirdly their examples of not resisting Persecuters being rather voluntary then enjoyned out of a longing desire to be Martyrs and an assurance of divine vengeance to be executed on their Persecuters is no restraint nor ground at all for other Christians now not to use any forcible resistance it being a grosse inconsequent to argue The Primitive Christians voluntarily refused to defend themselves with force of Armes against their Persecuters though they were not bound in point of Conscience from such resistance and had both liberty and power to resist Ergo Christians in point of Conscience ought not to make any forcible resistance against oppressing Lords and Persecuters now For then this their voluntary choice and election should deprive all following Christians of that ability of defence which both themselves then had and since enjoy by Gods and Natures Law Yet this is all the argument which can be ingeniously framed from these Authorities and Examples the absurdity whereof I shall thus further illustrate from like Precedents We know first That the primitive Christians out of a desire of martyrdome not only refused to resist but to flee away from their Persecuters when they might safely doe it some of them holding it unlawfull and dishonourable to flee in such a case by name Tertullian in his booke De fuga in persecutione Will our Opposites from hence inferre Ergo it is unlawfull for Christians not onely to resist but even to flee from their Persecuters or his Majesties murdering plundering Forces Or for them selves to flee not onely from the Parliaments Forces but Justice too as many of them have done yea made escapes against Law to flee therefrom If the Christians not fleeing binde neither them nor us not to flee now why should their not resisting onely doe it Secondly The Primitive Christians ran to the stake of martyrdome when they were neither accused cited persecuted by any freely confessing themselves Christians and rather desiring presently to die Martyrs then live Christians and reputing is worse then death not to be admitted to or delaied the honour of being Martyrs of which we have infinite Presidents in Ecclesiasticall Histories commonly known and over-tedious to recite I shall onely instance in Julian the Apostates Christian Souldiers who being over-reached by him under colour of a largesse to throw some Frankincense into a fire secretly kindled by the Emperour in honour of an Idol they dreaming of no such thing and doing it onely as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plementall Ceremonie as soon as they heard how the Emperour had over-reached them and given out speeches that they had sacrificed to his Idol presently rising from the feast prepared for them in a fury inflamed with zeale and wrath ran through the Market place and cried out openly Wee are Christians Wee are Christians in minde let all men heare it and above all God to whom we both live and will also die O Christ our Saviour we have not broken our faith plighted to thee If our hand hath any way offended verily our minde followed it not at all we are circumvented by the Emperours fraud with whose gold we are wounded We have put off impiety we are purged by blood After which posting speedily to the Emperour and casting away their gold with a generous and strenuous minde they exclaimed against him in this manner O Emperour we have not received gifts but are damned with death We are not called for our honour but branded with ignominie Give this benefit to thy Souldiers kill and behead us unto Christ to whose Empire onely we are subject Recompence fire for fire for those ashes reduce us into ashes Cut off the hands which we have wickedly stretched out the feet wherewith we have perniciously run together Give gold to others who will not afterwards repent they have received it Christ is enough and more then sufficient unto us whom we account in stead of all The Emperour enraged with this speech refused to slay them openly lest they should bee made Martyrs who as much as in them lay were Martyrs but onely banished them revenging this their contempt with that punishment Will it then follow from these memorable examples That all true Christians now in England and Ireland must come thus and offer themselves voluntarily to the Popish Rebels and Forces now in Arms to extirpate the Protestant Religion in both Kingdoms or that the Members of both Houses must go speedily to Oxford to the King and his evill Counsellors and there let them kill hang burne quarter slay execute torture them subvert Religion Laws Liberties Parliaments without the least resistance Or will our Opposites hence conclude as they may with better Judgement and Conscience doe Ergo all such persons voted Traitors and Delinquents in any kinde by both Houses of Parliament ought now in point of Conscience to avoid the effusion of blood and ruine of the Realm through the civill warres they have occasioned to lay down their Arms and voluntarily resigne up themselves to the impartiall Justice of the Parliament without any the least resistance for the future If no such Doctrinall or Practicall conclusions may be drawne from these their Precedents of voluntary seeking and rendring themselves up to the Martyrdome of their Opposites then the unlawfulnesse of resisting cannot be inferred from this their non-resisting Thirdly how many cowardly Souldiers in all ages and in this too have voluntarily yeelded up Forts Castles Ships Armes Persons to their invading approaching enemies without fight or resistance How many persons have resigned up their Purses to high-way theeves their Lands to disseisors their Houses Goods to riotors their Ships Estates Persons to Turkish and other Pirats
without any resistance when they might have lawfully and easily preserved them by resisting Will it therefore follow that all others must do so that we must not sight against invading Enemies Theeves Pirats Riotors because many good Christians out of fear or cowardise or for other reasons have not done it in all ages I â—ow not Will the Jews refusiâ—g three or four severall times to defend themselves against their insulting enemies on their Sabbath or the Gothes not resisting their invading foes on the Lords Day or will the Alexandrian Jewes example and speech to Flaccus Inermes sumus ut vides tamen sunt qui nos tanquam hostes publicos hic criminantur Etiam eas quas ad nostri tutelam partes dedit natura reâ—rò vertimus ubi nihil habent quod agant corpora praebemus nuda patentia ad impetum eorum qui nos volunt occidere Or that example of the Christian Theban Legion slain without the least resistance for their Religion who as an ancient Martyriologer saith Caedâ—bantur passim gladiis non reclamantes sed depositis armis cervices persecutoribus vel intectum corpus offerentes warrant this deduction Ergo no Christians now must resist their invading enemies on the Sabbath day but must offer their naked bodies heads throats unto their swords and violence If not then these examples and authorities will no wayes prejudice our present resistance Fourthly the Christians not onely refused to resist their oppressing Emperours and Magistrates who proceeded judicially by a kinde of Law against them but even the vulgar people who assaulted stoned slew them in the streets against Law as Tertullians words Quoties enim praeteritis à vobis SUO JURE NOS INIMICUM VULGUS invadit lapidibus incendiis c. manifest without all contradiction and indeed this passage so much insisted on relates principally if not onely to such assaults of the rude notorious vulgar which every man will grant the Christians might lawfully with good conscience forcibly resist because they were no Magistrates nor lawfull higher powers within Rom. 13. 1. 2. or 1 Pet. 2 13 14. Either then our Antagonist must grant that it is unlawfull in point of Conscience forcibly to resist the unlawfull assaults and violence of the vulgar or private persons who are no Magistrates and that it is unlawfull now for any Christians to resist Theeves Pirats or beare defensive Armes as the Anabaptists from whose quiver our Antagonists have borrowed this and all other shafts against the present defensive warre and so make the primitive Christians all Anabaptists in this particular Or else inevitably grant resistance lawfull notwithanding their examples and these passages of not resisting The rather because Tertullian in the next preceding words puts no difference at all between the Emperour and meanest Subjects in this case Idem sumus saith he Imperatoribus qui vicinis nostris malè enim velle malè facere malè dicere malè cogitare de quoquam ex aequo vetamur Quodcunqne non licet in Imperatorem id nâ—c in quenquam Fifthly admit the Christians then deemed all forcible resistance of persecuters simply unlawfull in point of Conscience as being a thing quite contrary to Christian profession and Religion then as it necessarily proves on the one side That even Christian Kings Princes Magistrates must in no wise forcibly resist the tumultuous Rebellions Insurrections and persecutions of their Subjects because they are Christians as well as Rulers and in this regard equally obliged with them not to resist with Armes much lesse then their Parliaments Forces lawfully raised for the publike defence So on the contrary part it follows not that therefore resistance is either unlawfull in it selfe or that the Parliaments present resistance is so For first such resistance being no where prohibited as I have formerly proved their bare opinion that it was unlawfull to them cannot make it so to them or us in point of conscience since God hath not made or declared it so Secondly the primitive Christians held many things unlawfull in point of Conscience which we now hold not so Tertullian and others informe us That the Christians in his time thought it a hainous sinne Nefas to pray kneeling on the Lords day or between Easter and Whitsontide and so by consequence to kneele at the Sacrament praying alwayes standing on those dayes in memory of Christs resurrection Which custome was ratified also by many Councels Yet then it was lawfull no doubt in it selfe for them to pray kneeling and we all use the contrary custome now The Christians then held it unlawfull to eat blood in puddings or any other meats as Tertullian Minucius Felix testifie and many Councels expressely prohibited it since as unlawfull Yet all Churches at this day deem it lawfull and practise the contrary The Christians in Tertullians dayes and he himselfe in a speciall Book De fuga in persecutione held it unlawfull to flee in times of persecution and therefore they voluntarily offered themselves to martyrdome without flight or resistance Yet we all now hold flying lawfull and all sorts practise it as lawfull yea many more then they ought to doe I might give sundry other instances of like nature The Christians opinion therefore of the unlawfulnesse of any armed resistance of Persecuters publike or private held they any such though seconded with their practice is no good argument of its unlawfulnesse without better evidence either then or at this present Thirdly the case of the Primitive Christians and ours now is far different The Emperours Magistrates and whole States under which they then lived were all Pagan Idolaters their Religion quite contrary to the Laws and false Religions setled in those States There were many Laws and Edicts then in force against Christian Religion unrepealed most Professors of Religion were of the lowest ranke not many wise Noble mighty men scarce any great Officer Magistrate or Senator was of that profession but all fierce enemies against it For Christians being but private men and no apparant body of a State to make any publike forcible resistance in defence of Religion against Emperours Senators Magistrates Lawes and the whole State wherein they lived had neither been prevalent nor expedient a great hinderance and prejudice to Religion and as some hold unlawfull But our present case is far otherwise our King Parliament State Magistrates People are all Christians in externall profession our Protestant Religion established Popery excluded banished by sundry publike Lawes the Houses of Parliament and others now resisting are the whole body of the Realme in representation and have authority even by Law to defend themselves and Religion against invading Popish Forces In which regards our present resistance is and may cleerly bee affirmed lawfull though the primitive Christians in respect of the former circumstances might not be so Secondly their resistance especially of the Magistrates not vulgar
rabble if made had been onely singly for defence of their Religion then practised but in corners publikely condemned no where tolerated Our present war is not onely for defence of our Religion established by Law and to keep out Popery but for the preservation of Laws Liberties the very essence of Parliaments the safety of the Realme and that by authority of Parliament the representative body of the Realme The Parliaments defensive warre therefore upon these politicke grounds is just and lawfull though the Primitive Christians perchance in defence of Religion onely as its case then stood would not have been so even as the Roman Senators and States resisting of Nero or any other Tyrannicall Emperors violations of the Laws Liberties Lives Estates of the Senate people were then reputed just and lawfull though the Christians defence of Religion would not have been so esteemed in those times And thus I hope I have satisfactorily answered this objection without shifts or evasions and rectified these mistaken Fathers meanings with which our Opposites have seduced the illiterate over-credulous vulgar I have now through Gods assistance quite run through all Obiections of moment from Scripture Reason Fathers against the lawfulnesse of the Parliaments present defensive war and discovered divers grosse errors yea Impostures in our Opposites writings wherewith they have perverted many mens Consciences and cheated the ignorant seduced world I shall therefore here advise them in the presence of Almighty God as they will answer the contrary before his Tribunall at the Day of Iudgement seriously to consider these my answers and publikely to retract those their Errors false grosse mis-interpretations perversions of Scriptures Authors which I have here discovered And since they pretend nothing but their satisfying and keeping of a good Conscience in by others concerned in this Controversie to shew a syncere ingenuous Conscience therein themselves where they have been mistaken since the contestation pretended is not for Victory Time-serving or Self-seeking but for Truth Gods glory and the publike weal and if I have over-shot my self in any thing I shall promise them a thankfull acknowledgement and ready palinedy upon their information and conviction of any apparent oversights I may casually fall into Now because they shall not deem me singular in my opinion concerning the lawfulnesse of subjects defensive Arms against their Soveraigns bent to subvert Religion Laws Liberties the Republike or deem it is a late upstart Novelty I shall conclude this discourse with such personall naturall and publike authorities as they shall not be able to balance with counter-resolutions in which I shall be as brief as I may be For personall Authorities I shall not be ambitious to remember many especially Papists whose common constant received opinion and practise hath alwayes been and yet is That Subjects upon the Popes command alone and absolution of them from their Soveraigns allegiance may and ought to take up even offensive Arms against their owne naturall Princes excommunicated interdicted deposed or onely declared contumacious Schismâ—ticall or Hereticall by the Pope without yea against their Kingdoms Parliaments privities or consents much more then with their approbation What Papists have determined and practised in this very point you may read at large in Gratiau himself Causa 15. Quaest 6. and Causa 23. in the very Oath of Supremacie and Statut. of 3. Iacobi ch 4. which prescribes it in Bishop Iewels view of a seditious Bull in Doctor Iohn White his Defence of the way Chap. 6. 10. in Abbas Vspergensis Sabellicus Valateranus Grimston and others in the Lives of the Roman and German Emperours in Aventinchis Annalium Boyorum the Generall and Particular Histories of France Spain Germany Italy Sicily Hungary England in Bishp Bilsons third part of the True Difference between Christian Subjection and unchristian Rebellion In sundry Sermons on the fift of November to which I shall refer you In Pope Paschal his letter to Robert Earl of Flanders about the year of our Lord 1107. exorting him to war against those of Leige Henry the Emperour and his Assistants wheresoever he should finde them excommunicated and deposed as an Heretike and enemy to the Church telling him that he could not offer a more gratefull sacrifice to God then to ware against them concluding Hoc tibi Militibus this in peccatorum remissionem Apostolicae sedis familiaritatem praecipimus ut his laboribus triumphis ad Coelestem Hierusalem Domino praestante pervenias Which Letter was excellently answered by those of Leige And in the Councel of Towres in France under Lewes the twelfth Anno 1510. it was unanimously resolved by the Church of France That if the Pope did make war upon temporall Princes in lands which they held not of the patrimony of the Church they might lawfully by force of Arms resist and defend both themselves and other not only repulse this injury but likewise invade the lands of the Church possessed by the Pope their notorious enemy not perpetually to retain but to hinder the Pope from becomming more strong and potent by them to offend both them and theirs And that it was lawfull for such Princes for such notorious hatred and unjust invasion to withdraw themselves from the Popes obedience and with armed force to resist all censures denounced by the Pope against them their subjects and Confederates and that such sentences ought not to be obeyed but are mear nullities in law which obliege no man Yet I must inform you further in brief that Iohn Maior a Popish Schoolman in Lib. 4. Sentent as Grotius writes affirms That the people cannot deprive themselves of the power not onely of resisting but deposing Kings in cases which directly tend to their destruction and that Iohn Barclay a late Scottish Priest though a strenuous defendor of Princes Prerogatives expresly averres That if a King will altenate and subiect his Kingdom to another without his subiects consents or be carried with atrue hostile minde to the destruction of all his people that his Kingdom is thereby actually lost and forfeited so as the people may not onely absolutely resist and disobey but depose him and elect another King to which Hugo Gortius a Protestant freely subscribes and Iohn Bodin alloweth of Subjects resistance yea deposing kings insome Kingdoms absolutely and in some cases gener allyin all De Repub. l. 1. c. 10. l. 1. c. 5 l. 5. c. 5. 6. For Protestant personall authorities we have Huldericus Zuinglius Explanatio Articuli 40 41 42 43. Tom. 1. fol. 82. to 86. who allows not only Subiects actuall resistance but deprivation of Kings Where Princes set themselves to subvert Religion Laws Liberties and that by the common consent of the States in Parliament from whom Kings originally receive their Royall power and authority Martin Luther Bugenhagius Iustus Ionas Ambsdorfius Spaelotinus Melancthon Cruciger and other Divines Lawyers Statesmen Anno 1531. who published a writing in justification of
would favour and bring to a good end SO HOLY AND NECESSARY AN ENTERPRIZE This their defensive Warre yet continuing hath been justified by many and in speciall maintained to be just and honorable BOTH IN LAW AND CONSCIENCE in a particular Book De jure Belli Belgici printed at the Hague with the States approbation 1599. to which I shall referre you Fifthly which comes neerest to our present case of any story I have met with Alphonso the 3. king of Arragon in the year 1286. through the ill advise of some bad Counsellors and Courtiers about him departed in discontent from the Parliament of the Estates of Arragon then assembled at Saragossa and posted to Osca because the Parliaments took upon them to make Lawes to reforme and order his Court his Courtiers which he denyed but they affirmed they had just right and power to doe Hereupon the businesse being put unto greater difficulty the Estates affirmed A Comitiis intempestive discedere Regi NEFAS ESSE That IT WAS A WICKED ACT FOR THE KING THVS VNSEASONABLY TO DEPART FROM THE PARLIAMENT NEITHER WAS SO GREAT A BREACH OF THEIR PRIVILEDGES AND RIGHTS TO BE PATIENTLY ENDVRED Whereupon they presently raised up the Name and FORCES OF THE VNION or Association formerly made and entred into between the Nobility Cities and people mutually to aid and assist one another to preserve the Peace and Liberties of the Realm even with force of Armes IT BEING LAWFVLL for the common cause of Liberty Non Verbis solum SED ARMIS QVOQVE CONTENDERE not onely TO CONTEND with words BVT ALSO WITH ARMES Vpon this king Alphonso desirous to prevent the mischiefs them present and incumbent by advise of his Privy Counsell published certaine good Edicts at Osca for regulating his Court Counsell Iudges Officers by which he thought to have ended all this Controversie but because they were promulged onely by the Kings own Edict not by the whole Parliament as binding Lawes they still proceeded in the Vnion till at last after various events of things this King returning to the Generall Assembly and Parliament of the Estates at Saragossa in the year 1287 condessended to their desires and confirmed the two memorable priviledges of the Vnion with the Soveraign power of the Iustice of Aragon which could controll their very Kings Of which see more in the Appendix I shall close up this of the lawfulnesse of a necessary defensive warre with the speech of the Emperour Alexander Seuerus recorded by Herodian l. 5. He who first infers injuries hath no probable colour but he that repulseth those who are troublesome to him EX BONA CONSCENTIA sumit fiduciam assumes confidence FROM A GOOD CONSCIENCE and good hope of successe is present with him from hence that he offers not injury but removes it Thus have I now at last waded thorow this weighty controversie of the lawfulnesse both in point of Law and Conscience of the Parliaments present and all other subjects necessary Defensive Warres against their Soveraigns who invade their lawes liberties Religion Government to subvert them by open force of Armes in which I have freely and impartially discharged my conscience not out of any turbulent seditious or disloyall intention to forment or perpetuate the present or raise any future destructive unnaturall warres between king Parliament and People or to countenance to encourage any tumultuous rebellious factious ambitious traiterous spirits to mutiny or rebell against their Soveraigns for private injuries or upon any false unwarrantable ends or pretences whatsoever let Gods curse and mens for ever rest upon all those who are in love with any warre especially a Civill within their own dearest Countries bowels or dare abuse my loyall sincere Lucubrations to any disloyall sinister designes to the prejudice of their Soveraignes or the States wherein they live but only out of a cordiall desire to effect such a speedy honourable safe religious semplternall peace between king and Parliament as all true Christian English hearts both cordially pray long for and endeavour by informing his seduced Majesty his evill Counsellors his Popish Malignant Forces that if they will still proceed unnaturally and treacherously to make war against their Native Countrey Religion Lawes Liberties and the Parliament which to doe I have elsewhere manifested to be no lesse then high Treason Rebellion against both King and Kingdome they may in point of conscience and Law too be justly opposed resisted repulsed even by force of Armes without any guilt of Treason Rebellion or feare of temporall or eternall condemnation as publike Enemies Rebels Traytors to the Realm whatevever they have hitherto been informed of to the contrary by temporizing Lawyers or flattering illiterate Court Divines and by assuring all such noble generous publike spirits who shall willingly adventure their lives or fortunes by the Parliaments command in the present necessary defensive warre for the ends premised that for this good service they shall neither in the Courts of Law nor Conscience incurre the least stain or guilt of Treason Rebellion sedition or any such like odious crime much lesse eternall condemnation the panick feare whereof frequently denounced against them by many sottish Malignants Royalists ill-instructed Lawyers and Theologasters hath frighted kept back and withdrawn multitudes from yea cooled corrupted many in this honourable publike duty service which they now owe of Right to God and their Countrey in which to be treacherous perfidious sloathfull negligent cold uncordiall or timerous as too many hitherto have been to the greater honour of those who haue been faithfull actiue Valiant and sincere especially now after so many late horrid treacheries most happily discouered and a new Couenant solemnly entred into demerits a perpetuall brand of infamy and reproach To dye fighting for ones dearest bleeding dying Countrey hath in all ages been honoured with a Crown of Martyrdome to liue or dye fighting against it hath ever deserved the most capitall censures ignominies and heaviest execrations Let both sides therefore now seriously ponder and lay all the premises close to their soules consciences and then I doubt not through Gods blessing but a happy peace will speedily thereon ensue Nation shall not lift up sword against Nation Countrey against Countrey Englishman against Englishman Brother against brother any more as now they doe neither shall they learn such an unnaturaall cursed kind of Civill Warre any more but beat their swords into Plow-shares and their speares into pruning hooks and greet one another with a kisse of holy peace and charity Which desired end and issue of these present bloudy warres God in his mercy hasten and accomplish to the joy of all our Soules I should now according to former engagements proceed to other remaining particulars but because this part hath already farre exceeded its intended bounds out of a desire to give full satisfaction in a point of highest present and future concernment every way I shall reserve the residue with the Appendix for another
other Law-Bookes Therefore the Cavalliers can no waies justifie nor excuse their Wounding Murthering Imprisoning Assaulting Robbing Pillaging and spoiling of his Majesties people and Subjects and making Warre upon them by vertue of any Warrant or Commission from the King but may justly and legally be apprehended resisted and proceeded against as Murtherers Rebels Robbers Felons notwithstanding any pretended Royall Authority to countenance their execrable unnaturall proceedings Secondly It is irrefragable that the Subjects in defence of their own Persons Houses Goods Wives Families against such as violently assault them by open force of Armes to wound slay beate imprison robbe or plunder them though by the Kings own illegall Commission may not onely lawfully arme themselves and fortifie their houses their Castles in Iudgement of Law against them but refist apprehend disarme beat wound repulse kill them in their just necessary defence not onely without guilt of Treason or Rebellion but of Tresspas or the very least offence And Servants in such Cases may lawfully justifie not onely the beating but killing of such persons who assault their Masters persons goods or houses as is expresly resolved by the Statute of 21. E. 1. De malefactoribus in Parcis By 24. H. 8. cap. 5. Fitzherbert Corone 192. 194. 246. 258. 261. 330. 21. H. 7 39. Trespas 246. Stamford lib. 1. cap. 5. 6. 7. 22. Ass 46. 11. H. 6. 16. a. 14. H. 6. 24. b. 35. H. 6. 51. a. 9. E. 4. 48. b. 12. E. 4. 6. a. 12. H. 8. 2. b. Brooke Coron 63. Trispas 217. Therefore they may justly defend themselves resist oppose apprehend and kill his Majesties Cavalliers notwithstanding any Commissions and make a defensive Warre against them when as they assault their persons houses goods or habitations without any Treason Rebellion or Crime all against the King or Law Thirdly It is past dispute That the Sheriffes Iustices of Peace Mayors Constables and all other Officers of the Realme may and ought by our Lawes and Statutes to raise the power of the Counties and places where they live and command all persons to arme themselves to assist them upon their Command when they see just cause which commands they are all bound to obey under paine of imprisonment and fines for their contemptuous disobediene herein to suppresse and withstand all publicke breaches of the Peace Riots Routs Robberies Fraies Tumults Forcible Entries and to apprehend disarme imprison and bring to condigne punishment all Peace-breakers Riotors Trespassers Robbers Plunderers Quarrellers Murtherers and Forces met together to doe any unlawfull-Hostile act though by the Kings owne precept and in case they make resistance of their power they may lawfully kill and slay them without crime or guilt if they cannot otherwise suppresse or apprehend them yea the Sheriffes and all other Officers may lawfully raise and arme the power of the County to apprehend Delinquents by lawfull Warrants from the Parliament or Processe out of other inferiour Courts of Iustice when they contemptuously stand out against their Iustice and will not render themselves to a Legall triall in which service all are bound by Law to assist these Officers who may lawfully slay such contemptuous Offenders in case they cannot otherwise apprehend them All which is Enacted and Resolved by 19. E. 3. cap. 38. 3. Ed. 1. cap. 5. 2. R. 2. cap. 6. 5. R. 2. cap. 5. 6. 7. R 2. cap. 6. 17. R. 2. cap. 8. 13. H. 4. cap 7. 1. H. 5. cap. 6. 2. H. 5. cap. 6. 8. 19. H. 7. cap. 13. 3. E. 6. cap. 5. 1. Mar. cap. 12. 31. H. 6. cap. 2. 19. E. 2. Fitz Execution 247. 8. H. 4. 19. a 22. Ass 55. 3. H. 7. fol. 1. 10. 5. H. 7. fol. 4. Register fâ— 59. 60. 61. Fitz. Coron 261. 288. 289. 328. 346. Stamford lib. 1. cap. 5. 6. Cooke lib. 5. fol. 92. 9. 3. with sundry other Bookes and Acts of Parliament and Walsingham Hist Angliae pag. 283. 284. Yea the Statute of 13. Ed. 1. cap. 38. recites That such resistance of Processe out of any the Kings Courts much more then out of the Highest Court of Parliament redounds much to the dishonour of the King and his Crowne and that such resisters shall be imprisoned and fined because they are desturbers of the Kings Peace and of his Realme And the expired Statute of 31. H. 6. cap. 2. Enacted That if any Duke Marquesse Earle Viscount or Baron complained of for any great Riots Extortions Oppressioâ—s or any offence by them done against the Peace and Lawes to any of the Kings Liege-people should refuse to obey the Processe of he Kings Court under his Great or-privie Seale to him directed to answer his said offenes either by refusing to receive the said Processe or dispiting it on withdrawing himselfe fâ—r that cause and not appearing after Proclamation made by the Sheriffe in the County at the day prescribed by the Proclamation that then hee should for this his contempt forfeit and lose all his Offices Fees Annuities and other Possessions that he or any man to his use hath of the gift or grant of the King or any of his Progenitors made to him or any of his Ancestors And in case he appeares not upon the second Proclamation on the day-therein to him limited that then he shall lose and forfeit his Estate and place in Parliament and also All the Lands and Tenements whâ—ch he hath or any other to his use for terme of his life and all other persons having no Lands not appearing after Proclamation were to be put out of the Kings Protection by this Act. Such a hemous offence was it then reputed to disobey the Processe of Chancery and other inferiour Courts of Iustice even in the greatest Peeres how much greater crime then is and must it be contemptuously to disobey the Summons Processe and Officers of the Parliament it selfe the supremest Court of Judicature especially in those who are Members of it and stand engaged by their Prostestations trusts and Places in it to maintaine its honour power and priviledges to the uttermost which many of them now exceedingly vilifie and trample under feete and therefore deserve a severer censure then this statute inflicts even such as the Act of 21. R. 2. c. 6. prescribed to those Nobles unjustly fore-judged in that Parliament That their issues males now begotten shall not come to the Parliaments nor to the Councells of the King nor his heires nor be of the Kings Counsell nor of his heires Therefore it is undubitable that the Sherifes Iustices of Peace Majors Constables Leivtenantes Captaines and other Officers in every County through the Realme may by their owne Authority much more by an Ordinance and Act of association of both houses raise all the power of the County all the people by vertue of such commands may lawfully meete together in Armes to suppresse the riots burglaries rapines plunders butcheries spoyling robberies and armed violence of his Majesties Cavaleers and apprehend imprison slay arraigne
tilting blame themselves aloâ—e and have no other just legall remedie but patience it being neither Treason Rebellion nor Murther in the defensive party and most desperate folly and frenzie in any Prince to engage himselfe in such a danger when beneede not doe it I reade of Charles the first of France that he fell sodainely destracted upon a message he recâ—ived from an old poore man as he was marching in the head of his Army and thereupon thinking himselfe bâ—trayâ—d encountred his owne men and slew two or three of them ere they were ware of him woâ—nding others Whereupon they closing with him disâ—rmed and led him away foâ—ceably keeping him close shut up like à Bedlaâ— till he recovered his sensâ—s I thinke no man in his right wits will deeme this their action Treasonable or unlawfull neither did the king or any in that age thus repute it If then a King in an angry franticke passion for Ir. brevius furor est shall take up Armes against his loyall Subjects and assault their persons to murther them and spoyle their goods if they by common consent in Parliament especially shall forcibly resist disarme or restraine his person till his fury be appeased and his judgement rectified by better councells shall this be Treason Rebellion or Disloyaltie God forbid I thinke none but mad men can or will averte it It was a great doubt in Law till the statute of 33. H. 8. c. 20. setled it If a party that had committed any high Treasons when he was of perfect memory after accusation examination and confession thereof became madde or lunaticke whether he should bâ— tried and condemned for it during this distemper And some from that very act and 21. H. 7. 31. 36. Ass 27. 12. H. 3. For faiture 33 and Dower 183. Fitz. Nat. Br. 202. D. Stamford Pleas 16. b. and Cooke l. 4. f. 124. Beverlyes case which resolve â—hat a Lunaticke or Non Compos cannot be guilty of murtheâ— fel nâ—y â—â—petite Treason because having no understanding and knowing not what he doth he can â—ave nâ— follonius intention conceive that a reall mad-man cannot be guilty of high Treason though Sir Edward Cooke in Bevâ—rlies case be of a contrary opinion if he should assault or kill his king And I suppose few will deeme Walter Terrils casuall killing of King William Rufus with the glance of his arrow from a tree shot at a Deere high Treason neither was it then reputed so or he prosecuted as a Traytor for it because he had no malicious intention as most thinke against the King or any thought to hurt him But I conceive it out of question if a king in a distracted furious passion without just cause shall invade his subjects persons in an open hostile manner to destroy them it neither is nor can be Treason ner Rebellion in them if in their owne necessary defence alone they shall either casually wound or slay him contrary to their loyall intentions and those Statutes and Law-bookâ—s which judge it high Treason for any one maliciously and trayterously to imagine compasse or conspire the death of the King will not at all extend to such a case of meere just defence since a conspiracie or imagination to compasse or procure the Kings death can neither be justly imagined nor presumed in those who are but meerely defensive no more then in other common cases of one mans killing another in his owne inevitable defence without any precedent malice in which a Pardon by Law is granted of course however questionlesse it is no Treason nor murther at all to slay any of the kings souldiers and Cavaliers who are no kings in such a defensive warre Sixthly suppose the King should be captivated or violently led away by any forraign or domesticke enemies to him and the kingdome and carried along with them in the field to countenance their warres and invasions upon his loyallest Subjects by illegall warrants or Commissions fraudulently procured or extorted from him If the Parliament and Kingdome in such a case should raise an Army to rescue the King out of their hands and to that end encountring the enemies should casually wound the King whiles they out of loyalty sought onely to rescue him I would demaund of any Lawyer or Divine whether this Act should be deemed Treason Rebellion or Disloyalty in the Parliament or army Or which of the two Armies should in point of Law or Conscience be reputed Rebells or Traytors in this case those that come onely to rescue the King and so fight really for him indeed though against him in shew and wound him in the rescue Or those who in shew onely fought for him that they might still detaine him captive to their wills Doubtlesse there is no Lawyer nor Theologue but would presently resolve in such a case that the Parliaments Army which fought onely to rescue the King were the loyall Subjects and the Malignants army who held him captive with them the onely Rebels and traytors and that the casuall wounding of him proceeding not out of any malicious intention but love and loyalty to redeeme him from captivity were no trespasse nor offence at all being quite besides their thoughts and for a direct president It was the very case of King Henry the third who together with his sonne Prince Edward being taken Prisoner by the Earle of Leycester in the battle of Lewis and the Earle afterwards carrying him about in his Company in nature of a Prisoner to countenance his actions to the great discontent of the Prince the Earle of Glocester and other Nobles hereupon the Prince and they raising an Army encountred the Earle and his Porces in a battle at Eveshaâ— where the King was personally present slew the Earle Routed his Army and rescued the king in this cruell battell the king himselfe being wounded unawares with a Iavelin by those who rescued him was almost slaine and lost much of his blood yet in a Parliament soone after sommoned at Winchester Anno 1266. the Earle and his Army were dis-inherited as Traytors and Rebels but those who rescued them though with danger to his person rewarded as his loyall subjects And is not this the present case A company of malignant ill Councellors Delinquents Prelates Papists have withdrawne his Majestie from his Parliament raised an Army of Papists Forraigners Delinquents and Male-contents to ruin the Parliament Kingdome Religion Lawes Liberties to countenance this their designe they detaine his Majestie with them and engage him all they can on their side the Parliament out of no disloyall intention but onely to rescue his Majesties person out of their hands to apprehend delinquents preserve the Kingdome from spoyle and defend their Priviledges Persons Liberties estates religion from unjust invasions have raised a defensive Army which encountred these Forces at Edgehill where they say the King was present slew the Lord Generall Earle of Lindsey with many others and as they never intended so they
and in such a case God saith Psal 149. 6. 7. 8. 9. Let a two edged sword be in their hands to execute vengeance upon the heathen and punishment upon the people to biâ—de their Kings with chains and their Nobles with fetters of Iron to execute upon them the judgâ—ment written This honour this priviledge in such cases HAVE ALL THE SAINTS Praise ye the Lord. And very good reason is there for it For as Nature it selfe hath instructed Lyons Beares Wolves Boares Stagges Backes and most other beasts not onely to defend themselves against the violence of one another but even of Men their supreame Lords when they assault and hunt them to take away their lives over which God hath given men a lawfull power much more then may men by natures dictate defend their persons lives against the unlawfull violence of their kings or Armies over which God hath given them no power at all but in a legall way of justice for capitall offences when they assault or make warre upon them to destroy them Not to trouble you with Histories of Stagges and other beasts which have killed men that chased them in their owne defence of which there are infinite examples in the Roman and Spanish Histories in those Amphithreatricall sports and spectacles wherein men encountred and fought with Lyons Tygers Beares Buls and other savage Beasts I shall onely recite some few examples even of Kings themselves who have beene slaine and devoured by such beasts as they have chased Madaâ— King of Britain as Polycronicon Fabien Grafton and others record being in his disport of hunting was slain of the wilde beasts he pursued when he had reigned 40. yeares so was his sonne King Memphis slaine and destroyed in hunting in the same manner Merindus King of Brittaine was devoured by a Sea monster which he encountered and Basilius the 35 Emperour of Constantinople hunting a Stag of an extraordinary greatnesse and thinking to cut off his necke with his sword the Stagge ran fiercely at him gored him with his hornes on which he tossed him bruised his entralls whereof he dyed some few dayes after and had beene slaine immediately on the beasts hornes had not one there present drawne his sword and cut off his girdle by which he hung on the hornes to whom he gave a very ill requitall for this loyall service other stories of kings slaâ—ne by beasts in their owne defence occure in story and examples of kings slaine by men in and for their preservation are almost innumerable that of our king Edmond is observable among others who as our Historians write being at a feast at Pulkers Church on Saint Augustines day espied a theese named Leof whom he had formerly banished sitting in the Hall whereupon he leapt over the Table assaulted Leof and plucked him by the haire of the head to the ground who in his owne defence wounded the king to death with a knife hurt many of his servants and at length was himselfe hewen all in peeces But that of our King Richard the 1. is more remarkeable who being shot in the arme with a barbed Arrow by one Peter Basil or Bertram Gurdon as others name him at the siege of Chaluz Castle in Aquitain which rebelled against him the Castle being taken and the king ready to dye of the wound commanded the person that shot him to be brought into his presence of whom he demanded What hurt â—e had done him that provoked him to this mischiefe To whom he boldly replyed Thou hast killed my father and my two Brothers with thine own hand and now wouldest have slain me take what revenge thou wilt I shall willingly endure what ever torture thou canst inflict upon me in respect I have slaine thee who hast done such and so great mischiefe to the world The king hearing this his magnanimous answer released him from his bonds though he slew the rest and not onely forgave him his death but commanded an hundred shillings to be given him If then bruites by the very law of Nature have thus defended themselves against kings who have violently assaulted them even to the casuall death of the assailants Why men by the selfesame Law may not justly defend themselves against the unjust assailing warres of their Princes and Armies without Treason or Rebellion exceeds my shallow understanding to apprehend and I doubt those very persons who now plead most against it onely to accomplish their owne pernicious designes would make no scruple of such a necessary defensive wars and resistances lawfulnesse were the case but really their own and those Papists and Cavalieers who now take up armes against the Parliament the supreamest lawfull power in the Realme and their owne native Country without checke of Conscience would doubtlesse make no bones at all forcibly to resist or fight against the King himselfe should he but really joyne with the Parliaments Army against them and their designes there being never any Souldier or Polititian but those onely who were truely sanctified and religious that made any conscience of fighting against yea murthering of his naturall king not onely in a lawfull defensive warre but in a Trayterous and Rebellious manner too if he might thereby advantage or promote his owne particular interests as is evident by the councell and speech of Davids souldiers and King Saul himselfe 1 Sam. 24. 4. 5. 6. 7. 18. 19. 21. by the words of Abishai to David 1 Sam. 28. 8. 9. 23. 24. by the Councell of Aâ—â—itophell which pleased Absolon and all the Elders of Israel well 2 Sam 17. 1. 2. 3. 4 and the infinite number of Emperours of Kings which have beene trayterously and rebelliously slaine without any just occasion by their own Souldiers and that in a meere offensive not defensive way above halfe the Roman Grecian and German Emperours dying of such assassinations or poysonings very few of them of meere naturall deathes as the Histories of their lives declare Eightly It is in a manner agreed by Historians Polititians and Divines that if a King will desert the defence and Protection of his people in times of warre and danger and neither ayde nor protect them against their enemies according to his Oath and Duty they may in such a case of extremity for their owne necessary defence and preservation desert him who deserteth them and elect another King who can and will protect them from utter ruin Vpon this very ground the Brittons of this Nation after many hundred yeares subjection to the Roman Emperors rejected their yoake and government when they refused and neglected to defend them against the barbarous Picts and others who invaded them when they had oft craved their assistance electing them other Patriots So the Spaniards being deserted by the Roman Emperors and left as a prey to their enemies abandoned their government and elected them Kings of their owne to protect them which they justified to be lawfull for them to doe And in like manner
the Romans and Italians being forsaken of the Emperour Constantine when they were invaded by Aistulfus King of the Lumbards Elected Charles the Great for their Emperour and created a new Empire in the West distinct from that of Constantinople in the East which Bishop Bilson himselfe concludes they might lawfully doe in point of conscience So Childerick being unfit to governe and unable to repulse the enemies of the French which invaded his territories thereupon by the advise of Pope Zachary and of a whole Synod and Parliament in France they deposed Childericke and elected Pipin for their King who was both able and willing to protect them Vpon this very ground the Emperours Charles the third and Wenceslius were deposed as being unable and unfit to defend and governe the Empire and others elected Emperors in their steeds Thus Mahomet the blinde King of Granado was in the yeare 1309. deposed by his owne Brother Nobles and Subjects who were discontented to be governed by a blinde King who could not lead them to the warres in person And Ethodius the 2 d king of Scotland being dull of wit given to avarice and nothing meete to governe the Realme thereupon the Nobles tooke upon them the governmeÌ„t appointing Rulers in every Province so continued them all his reigne leaving him nothing but the bare title of a King not depriving him thereof out of the respect they gave to the family of Fergusius but yet taking away all his regall power And not to multiply cases or examples of this nature Andrew Favine in his Theatre of Honour out of the Chronicle of Lauresheâ—m and Aimonius in his 4 th Booke of the History of France relates a notable resolution given by the Parliament Estates of France in this very point In the yeare 803. Lewes the Debonnaire king of France holding his Parliament in May there came thither from strange Provinces two Brethren kings of Vuilses who with frank free good will submitted themselves to the judgement of the said Parliament to which of them the kingdome should belong The elder of these two brethren was named Meligastus and the younger Celeadraus Now albeit the custome of the said kingdome adjudged the Crowne to the eldest according to the right of Primegeniture allowed and practised by the Law of Nature and of later memory in the person of the last dead King Liubus father to the two contendants yet notwithstanding in regard that the Subjects by universall consent of the kingdome had rejected the elder brother FOR HIS COWARDISE AND EVILL GOVERNMENT cum secundam ritum ejus gentis commissum sibi Regnum parum digne administraret and had given the Crown to the younger brother FOR HIS VALOVR DISCREETE CARRIGE after full hearing of both parties BY SENTENCE of PARLIAMENT the Kingdome was adjudged to the younger Brother statâ—it ut junior frater delatam sibi à Populo suo pot flatem haberet c and thereupon the eldest did him homage with oath of Alleigance in the said Parliament and submitted to this sentence And upon this very ground in some of our ancient British and Saxons Kings Reignes when the right heire to the Crowne was an infant unable to defend his kingdome and people against invading enemies the Crowne hath commonly descended to the Vncle or next heire of full age who was able to protect them and repulse their enemies till the right heire accomplished his compleat age as I have elsewhere manifested If then a Kingdome by generall consent may elect a new King to defend and preserve it in case of invasion and eminent danger of ruine by forraigne enemies when their present King either cannot or will not doe his duty in protecting them from their enemies and exposeth them for a prey to their devastations as these examples and authorities conclude they may though I will not positively determine so Then certainely by equall semblable and greater reason subjects may lawfully take up necessary defensive Armes against their Kings when they shall not onely desert but actually invade and wage warre against them destroy and wast them in an open Hostile manner and handle them as cruelly as the worst of enemies such a wilfull unnaturall Hostile invasion being farre worse than any cowardly or bare desertion of theÌ„ when they are invaded by a forraign enemy And if Kings in case of sottishnesse or Lunacy may be lawfully deposed from their kingdomes by common consent of their Realmes when they are altogether unfit or unable to governe as Bâ—shop Bilson asserts and I have manifested else where then much more may they be lawfully resisted by force without guilt of Treason or Rebellion when they wilfully and maliciously contrary to their oath and duty cast off their Royall governments the protection of their subjects and wage open warre against them to enslave or ruine them If a Father shall violently and unjustly assault his sonne a husband his wife a master his servant a Major or other inferior Officer a Citizen to murther maime or ruine them They may in such a case by the Law of Nature God man resist repulse them in their owne defence without any crime at all as dayly practise experimentally manifests yea they may sweare the peace against them and have a Writ de securitate Pacis in such cases Therefore by the selfesame reason they may resist the King and his Army in like cases there being no more humane nor divine Law against resistance in the one case than in the other Finally it is the resolution of John Bodin and others who deny the lawfulnesse of Subjects taking up Armes against their Soveraigne Prince or offering violence to his person though he become a Tyrant That if a Soveraigne Prince or King by lawfull election or succession turne a Tyrant he may lawfully at his Subjects request be invaded resisted condemned or slaine by a forraigne Prince For as of all Noble acts none is more honourable or glorious then by way of fact to defend the honour goods and lâ—ves of such as are unjustly oppressed by the power of the more mighty especially the gate of Iustice being shut against them thus did Moses seeing his brother the Israelite beaten and wronged by the Egyptian and no meanes to have redresse of his wrongs So it is a most faire and magnificall thing for a Prince to take up Armes to releive a whole Nation and people unjustly oppressed by the cruelty of a Tyrant as did the great Hercu'es who travelling over a great part of the world with wonderfull power and valour destroyed many most horrible monsters that is to say Tyrants and so delivered people for which he was numbred among the gods his posterity for many worlds of yeares after holding most great Kingdomes And other imitators of his vertue as Dio Timoilion Aratus Harmodius Aristogiton with other such honourable Princes bearing Titles of chastisers and correctors of Tyrants And for that onely cause
of them did Or any other of their company or of their ayde or of their adherents or of any of them or touching the Assemblies Ridings Appeales and Pursuites aforesaid * As a thing made to the Honour of God Salvation of the King maintenance of his Crowne and also of the Salvation of all his Realme therefore doubtlesse no Treason Rebellion nor any offence in point of Law and also to Ordaine and Stablish that the said Duke of Glocester Earles of Darby Arundell Warwicke and Marshall nor none of them nor none of such as have beene of their returne or company force ayde or councell or any of them in the things aforesaid nor none other person for any thing aforesaid shall be impeached molested or grieved at the suite of the king nor of the party nor in other manner because of any assembly riding beating levying of Penons or of Banners discomfiture death of a man imprisonment of any person taking leading away or detinue of any horses or of any other beasts taking or carriage of goods harnesse armour cattle and other â—ovable goods breaking of houses or of other possessions or goods assault battery robberies thefts comming or tarrying with force and armes or armed in the Kings presence at the Parliament or Councell or else where Raysing of people or exciting the people to rise forcibly against the peace by letters commissions or any other deeds or of any other thing that may be furniâ—hed by them or any of them or ought or purposed to have beene done from the beginning of the world touching any of the said matters before the end of this present Parliament by any imagination interpretation or other colour but shall bee quit and discharged for ever except that the King be answered of all the goods and cattels that were to them which be attainted in this present Parliament or to any of them and which goods and things were taken by any person the first day of January last past or after hitherto We considering the matter of the said Petition to be true and the request of the said Commons in this party to be to the honour of God and the profit of us and our Realme of the assent of the Prelates Dukes Earles Barrons and all others of this present Parliament doe garnt the requests of the said Commons in all points after the forme of the said Petition And moreover of the assent aforesayd we will and grant for the greater quietnesse of our said Realme though that the said Duke or Earles appellants or any other of their company retinue force ayde councell or adherents or any of them have taken led away or withholden any of our Iusticers or any other of our ministers in disturbance of execution of the Law of our Realme of England or in other manner or that they have taken any manner of person as Traitors to Us or to our Realme or other person and the same have voluntarily suffered to goe at large or escape beyond the sea from the 14 th day of Novemb. last past till the end of this present Parliament that they nor any of them be for this cause impeached molested nor grieved any manner of way at the suite of us our heires nor none other party but thereof they shall be quit and discharged for ever nor that they nor any of them be in any wise molested grieved nor impeached at the suite of us our heires or other party for any thing done at any time for to attaine to their purpose against the said appealers or any of them or against any other person for this cause nor for any other thing or deed to affirme the same purposes till the end of this present Parliament but thereof shall be acquitted This Act with others made the same Parliament continued inviolable without dispute for 10 yeers space during w ch there were 8. more Parliaments held w ch approved it but in 21 R. 2. the King having violently seised upon the Duke of Glocester the Earles of Warwicke and Arundell and packed a Parliament to his minde by not summoning any Lords thereto but those oâ— his party by causing divers Knights and Burgesses of his own nomination never chosen by the people to be returned in divers places and overawing the rest with a guard or 4000. Cheshire Archers caused these Lords to be illegally attainted of Treason upon fained pretences out of this old grudge and the Acts of this Parliament to be reversed yet not this Act as I conceive which is part of it being specially saved by 21. R. 2. c. 13. But however by the statute of 1 H. 4. c. 3. 4. the Parliament of 21. was wholly repealed reversed revoked voyded undone and anulled for ever with all the Acts circumstances and dependants thereof and this Parliament of 11. R. 2. Enacted to be firmely holden and kept after the purport and effect of the same as a thing made for the great Honour and common profit of the Realme and ch 5. It is ordained and assented that the Lords and other which were forejudged in the Parliament holden the said 21. yeare or by Authority of the same which now be in life and the heires of the Lords and others that be dead shall be wholly restitute and restored to their names all manner of inheritaments and possessions reversions fees reversions offices liberties and franchises as intirely as the said Lords and others which be in life or the Lords and other which be dead ancestors of the heires or the feoffees of the said Lords or other aforesaid or other feoffees to their use were at the time of the judgement given against them the said 21 yeare by entrie without other suite thereof to be made or livery to be had of the same And all the goods and chattels which were the said Lords or the other persons aforesaid so forejudged whereof the king is not answered and be in the hands of the Sheriffes Escheators or other Officers Ministers or any other and concealed by them the king wills and granteth that the same Lords and other which now be in life and the Executors and administrators of them that be dead shall have thereof delivery and restitution and that the Sheriffes Escheators Officers and Ministers so occupying the said goods and chattels by such concealment bee punished for the same concealement So that by the expresse resolution of these two severall Parliaments these Lords and Commons taking up defensive Armes and making war against those wicked Councellours of this King which sought their ruine and endeavoured the destruction of the Realme though they had the kings presence and commissions to countenance all their actions and proceedings of this nature and the Lords wanted the Ordinances of both houses to authorize this their arming and war was solemnely declared and adjudged to be no Treason nor Rebellion at all nor levying of warre against the king within the statute of 25. E. 3. but contrarywise a thing done to
Theology which others have wholly omitted may seasonably be here supplyed to satisfie Consciences yet unresolved of the justnesse of the present and all other necessary Defensive Warres I shall not over-sparingly or cursorily passe through it without a competent debate Now lest the Consciences of any should bee seduced ensnared with generalities or cleere mistakes through the mis-stating of the points in question with which devise many have beene hitherto deluded by the Opposites who cumbate onely with their owne mishapen fancies discharging all their Gunshot against such Tenets as are not in question and no waies comming neere the White in Controversie I shal for my own orderly proceeding and the better satisfaction of ignorant scrupulous seduced consciences more punctually state the Question then formerly in the Legall Part first Negatively next Positively and then proceede to its debate Take notice therefore First that this is no part of the question in dispute Whether the Parliament or any Subjects who soever may actually disobey or violently with force of Armes resist the Kings or any other lawfull Magistrates just commands warranted either by Gods Word or the Lawes of England it being out of controversie readily subscribed by all of both sides that Such commands ought not so much as to be disobeyed much lesse forcibly resisted but cheerefully submitted to and readily executed for Conscience sake Rom. 13. 1. to 6. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. Tit. 3. 1. Hebr. 13. 17. Iosh 1. 16 17. 18. Ezra 7. 26. Eccles 8 2 3 4 5. the onely thing these objected Scriptures prove which come not neere the thing in question though our Opposites most rely upon them Secondly Neither is this any branch of the dispute Whether Subjects may lawfully rise up or rebell against their Prince by way of Muteny Faction or Sedition without any just or lawfull publicke ground or for every trifling injury or provocation offered them by their Prince Or whether private men for personall wrongs especially where their lives chastities livelihoods are not immediatly endangered by actuall violent unjust assaults may in point of Conscience lawfully resist or rise up against their Kings or any other lawfull Magistrates Since all disavow such tumultuous Insurrections and Rebellions in such cases yet this is all which the oft objected Examples of Korah Dathan and Abiram with other Scriptures of this Nature doe or can evince Thirdly nor is this any parcell of the Controversie Whether Subjects may lay violent hands upon the persons of their Princes wittingly or willingly to deprive them of their Lives or Liberties especially for private Injuries or in cold blood when they doe not actually nor personally assault their lives or chastities or for any publike misdemeanours without a precedent sentence of Imprisonment or death against them given judicially by the whole States or Realmes where they have such Authority to araigne and judge them For all unanimously disclaime yea abominate such Traitorous practises and Iesuiticall Positions as execrable and unchristian yet this is all which the example of Davids not offering violence to King Saul the 1 Sam. 24. 3. to 22. cap. 26. 2. to 25. 2 Sam. 1. 2. to 17. or that perverted Text of Psal 105. 15. the best Artillery in our Adversaries Magazines truely prove Fourthly Neither is this the thing in difference as most mistake it Whether the Parliament may lawfully raise an Army to goe immediately and directly against the very person of the King to apprehend or offer violence to him much lesse intentionally to destroy him or to resist his owne personall attempts against them even to the hazard of his life For the Parliament and their Army too have in sundry Remonstrances Declarations Protestations and Petitions renounced any such disloyall intention or designe at all for which there is no colour to charge them and were his Majestie now alone or attended onely with his Ordinary Courtly Guard there needed no Army nor Forces to resist his personall assaults Yet this is made the principall matter in question by Doctor Ferne by An appeale to thy Conscience and other Anti-parliamentary Pamphlets who make this the sole Theame of their Discourses That Subjects may not take up Armes Against their Lawfull Soveraigne because he is wicked and unjust no though he be an Idolater and Oppressor That Suppose the King will not discharge his trust but is bent or seduced to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties yet Subjects may not take up Armes and resist the King it being unwarrantable and according to the Apostle damnable Rom. 13. Yea this is all the questions the G. valleers and Malignants demand of their Opposites in this cause What will you take up Armes will you fight against or resist the King c. Never stating the question of his Forces his Army of Papists Malignants Delinquents but onely of the King himselfe abstracted from his invading depopulating Forces against whom in this sence of theirs the Parliament never yet raised any Forces nor made the least resistance hitherto These foure particulars then being not in question I shall here appeale to the most Malignant Conscience Whether Doctor Ferne and all other our Opposites pretenders of Conscience haue not ignorantly if not maliciously made shipwracke of their good Consciences had they ever any by a wilfull mistating of the Controversie concerning the present Defensive Warre in the foure preceding particulars which they make the onely Questions when not so much as one of them comes within the Verge of that which is the reall Controversie and never once naming that in all or any of their Writings which is the point indeed Secondly Whether there bee any one Text or Reason in all their Pamphlets particularly applied to any thing which concernes the present Warre but onely to these foure particulars which are not in debate And if so as no Conscience can gaine-say it then there is nought in all the wast Papers they have published which may either resolve or scruple any Conscience That the Parliaments Defensive Armes and resistance are unlawfull in point of Divinity or Conscience which is steered by the Scriptures Compasse But if these particulars be not in question you may now demand what the knot and true state of the present Controversie in point of Conscience is In few words take it thus Whether both Houses of Parliament and the Subjects by their Authority for the preservation of their owne Persons Priviledges Lawes Lives Liberties Estates Religion the apprehension of Voted coâ—tumatious Traitors and Delinquents the rescuing his seduced Majestie out of the power of Popish pernicious Counsellours and Forces who end avour the Kingdomes subversion by withdrawing him from and incensing him against his Parliament may not lawfully with a good Conscience take up necessary defensive Armes and make actuall Warlike resistance against his Majesties Malignant ill Counsellors and invading Popish Forces who now Murther Rob Spoile Sacke Depopulate the Kingdome in a most Hostile manner to set up Tyranny Popery and an
Arbitrary lawlesse Government in case they come armed with his personall presence or commission to execute these their wicked illegall designes Especially when neither the Parliament nor their forces in this their resistance have the least thought at all to offer any violence to the Kings owne person or to oppose his Legall iust Soveraigne Authority Or shorter Whether the Kings Captaines and Souldiers invading the Parliament and Subiects as aforesaid the Parliament or Subjects especially when authorized by an Ordinance of both Houses may not with a safe Conscience forcibly resist these Malignants though armed with the Kings illegall Commissions without his personall presence or with his presence and Commissions too And for my part I thinke it most evident that they may lawfully resist repulse them even by Divine Authority For the better clearing whereof I shall premise these three undeniable Conclusions First That no lawfull King or Monarch whatsoever much lesse the Kings of England who are no absolute Princes have any the least Authority from the Lawes of God or man personally by themselves or instruments to doe any injurie or iniustice to their Subiects how much lesse then by open Force to Murther Rob Plunder Ravish Ruine or Spoile them of their Lawes Liberties Estates Religion all which is plentifully proved by Law Authorities in the premises and punctually confirmed by these ensuing Texts Ezech. 44 15 16 17. cap. 45. 8 9. Psalm 105. 14. 15. Isay 14. 15. to 23. 2 Sam 23. 3. Isay 1. 23. cap. 3. 12. 14. 15. Prov. 28. 15. 16. Ezech. 22. 6. 7. 27. Zeph. 3. 3. Mich. 3. 1. to 12. 1 Sam. 12. 3. 4. 5. 1 King cap. 21. 22. Zeph. 2. 8. Isay 9. 7. cap. 16. 5. cap. 32. 1. 2. cap. 49. 23. 2 Chron. 9. 8. Ier. 22. 3. to 32. Obad. 2. 10. to 16. Rom. 13. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1 Pet. 2. 13. 16. and infinite Scriptures more Secondly That all Subiects and persons whatsoever are obliged both in point of Law and Conscience to disobey resist and not execute the uniust illegall Commissions Mandates of their Kings and other Magistrates This is evident by the Midwiâ—es refusall to murther the Hebrewes Male-children at King Pharoabs command for which God blessed them and built them houses Exod 1. 15. to 20. By Balaams deniall to curse or defie the Israelites at King Balacks intreaty Numb 22. 23. 24. By the refusall of Sauls Guard and Footmen to slay or fall on the Priests a Nob by King Sauls personall command though present and not onely their King but Master too 1 Sam. â—2 17. 18. By Ionathans denyall to kill or consent to the death of David upon Sauls mandate though not onely his Soveraigne but Father although he might have gained the Crowne by it and indangered his owne life by refusing it 1 Sam. 20. 27. to 42. By Sauls Armour-beares forbearance to runne him thorow with his Sword when he fled before the Philistimes though he as his King and Master enioyned him to doe it lest the uncircumcised should come and thrust him through and abuse him 1 Sam. 3â— 4. By Mordechai his denyall to bend the knee to Haman the great Favourite though the King had so commanded Esther 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. By Shadracâ— Meshach Abodnego and Daniels refusall to eat of the Kings portion of meat and wine assigneâ— them least they should be desiled Dan. 1. 5. to 12. By their peremptory resolution not To fall downe and worship King Nebuchadnezzars golden Image though twice strictly commanded by the King to doe it and threatned to be cast into the fiery Furance as they were for refusing it Dan. 3. 4 to 30. By Daniels disobeying the Kings and Lords Jdolatrous Decree not to offer a Petition to any God or man for 30. dayes save of King Darius under paine of being cast into the Lyons Denne Dan. 6. 5. to 24. By the Pharises and chiefe Priests Officers neglect to apprehend our Saviour for his Preaching though enjoyned so to doe by their Masters Iohn 7. 32. to 48. By the Apostles refusall to give over Preaching and perseverance in Preaching notwithstanding the High Priests and Councels expresse Inhibitions and doubled Commands seconded with Apprehensions Imprisonments Scourgings and their direct resolutions in this very case That we ought to obey God rather then men Acts 4. 12. to 22 cap. 5. 17. to the end By Peters Preaching to and conversing with the Vncircumcised Gentiles notwithstanding the Christian Iewes dislike Acts 11. 1. to 19. with infinite Presidents of this nature in Ecclesiasticall Histories the very sufferings of all the Martyrs depending on this ground alone which is backed by Matth. 10. 28. 32. 33. Luc. 12. 4. 8. cap. 9. 23. 24. 25. 26. Ezech. 2. 3. to 9. Rev. 13. 3. to the end Rom. 12 1. 2. John 16. 2. 3. 1 Thess 2 14. 15. 16. Exod. 32. 2. Josh 24 15. Psalm 44. 15. to 23. Thirdly That as all Kings illegall unjust commands are void in Law and will no waies extenuate the guilt or justifie the actions of those instruments who execute them in point of Law as I havef formerly cleared so are they likewise meer nullities and insufficient to excuse the executioners of them in point of Conscience as is evident by Psal 52. 5. where God threatens to destroy Doeg the Edomite for ever to take him away plucke him out of his dwelling place and root him out of the land of the Living for executing King Sauls bloody command upon the Priests at Nob 1 Sam. 22. By Gods exemplary punishment upon those Souldiers who by King Nebuchadnezzars speciall command bound the three Children and cast them into the firy Furnace who were slaine by the flames of the Furnaâ—e though these three Martyrs had no harme in the Furnace it selfe Dan. 3. 20. to 28. By Gods consuming the two Captaines and their fifties with fire from heaven who came violently to apprehend the Prophet Elijab by King Ahaziah his commission and unjust command 2 King 1. 9 to 16. By the Precept of Iohn Baptist given to Souldiers themselves Luke 3. 14. Doe violence to no man neither by the Kings nor Generalls Command neither accuse any falsely By 1 Tim. 5. 22. Lay hands sodainly on no man no more in a violent Military then an Ecclesiasticall sense neither be partakers of other mens sinneâ— Compared with the next forecited Scriptures with Rom. 1. 32. Math. 15. 14. Psal 50. 18 21. Prov. 1. 10. to 16. Obaâ— vers 10. to 16 Isay 1. 23. with Isay 9 16. The leaders of this people cause them to erre and those thâ—t are led of them are destroyed What therefore Saint Iohn writes in another case 2 Iohn 10. 11. If there come any unto you be he an Archbishop Bishop Archdeadon Ferne himselfe or any Court Chaplaine whatsoever and being not this Doctrine receive him not into your house neither bid him God speed for he that biddeth him God speed Is partaker of his
evill Deeds I shall apply to this particular of executing Kings unjust Commands against their people they are partakers of their Kings wickednesse if they do but intertaine their unjust Commissions into their Houses or bid them God speed much more if they execute them either voluntarily or against their wills out of an unworthy feare or base respects These three Conclusions being irrefragable My first Argument to justifie resistance from them shall be this That violence against the Subjects persons Consciences Families Estates Properties Priviledges or Religion which neither the King himselfe in proper person nor any his Officers nor Souldiers by command from him have any Autoritie by the Lawes of God or man in Law or Conscience to inflict and which in Conscience ought not to be obeyed but rejected as a meere nulliâ—y even by the instruments enjoyned for to execute it may justly with a safe Conscience be resisted by the Parliament and Subjects there being not one syllable in Gods Word to contradict it But the violence now offered by the Kings Forces to the Parliament and Subjects every where is such Therefore it may justly with a safe Conscience be resisted especially in the Kings Commanders and Souldiers who are neither the King himself nor the Higher Powers ordained by God and no other then plain Theeves and Murtherers in Law and Conscience if they plunder kill spoile their Commissions being but Nullities in both and they in this particular meere private men without any Authority to iustifie their actions as I have already proved Secondly That resistance which is warranted by direct Precedents recorded approved in Scripture even by God himself must questionlesse be lawfull in case of coâ—science But the resistance even of Kings their highest Magistrates officers in the execution of their unjust Commands is thus warranted Therfore doubtles it must be lawfull in point of Conscience The Minor only questionable is thus confirmed First by the notable example of the Prophet Elijah 2 Kings 1. 2. to 16. who sending backe King Ahaziah his Messengers sent by him to enquire of Baalâ—zebub the God of Ekron whether hee should recover of his disease with an harsh Message to the King contrary to his Command which they disobeyed thereupon this King in an angry fume sent two Captaines with 50. men apeece one after another to apprehend the Prophet for this affront as Iosephus with other Interpreters accord who comming with their forces to him said Thou man of God the King hath said come downe quickly To whom he successively answered If I be a man of God then let fire come downe from Heaven and consume thee and thy fifty And there came fire from heaven thereupon and consumed two Captaines and their fifties but the third Captaine and his fifty who humbled themselves to the Prophet and begged the sparing of their lives were spared the Angel of the Lord bidding the Prophet to goe downe with them to the King and not be afraid From which Text it is infallible even by a divine Miracle from heaven doubled by God himselfe That it is lawfull for Subjects in some cases to resist the unjust violence of the Souldiers and Captaines of their Kings though armed with their Regall Commands Secondly by the History of the Prophet Elisha 2 Kings 6. 31 32 33. Who when King Ioram his Soveraigne had sworne unjustly in his fury God doe so to me and more also if the head of Elisha shall stand on him this day and thereupon sent a Messenger before him to Elisha his house to take away his head the Prophet was so farre from submitting to this Instrument of his that he Commanded the Elders sitting then with him in the house to looke when the Messenger came and shut the doore and Hold him fast at the Doore though the sound of his Masters feet the King were behind him whom he stiles the sonne of a Murderer Might these two eminentest Prophets thus openly resist the Captaines Souldiers and unjust Executioners of their Princes with a good Conscience and may not others lawfully doe the like No doubt they may Thirdly If I bee not much mistaken this kind of resistance is warranted even by Christ himselfe and his Apostles For a little before his Apprehention Christ uttered this speech unto his Disciples Luke 22. 36 37 38. But Now he that hath no Sword let him sell his garment and buy one c. And they said Lord behold here are two Swords And he said unto them it is enough Why would Christ have his Disciples buy Swords now unlesse it were for his and their owne better Defence being the time when he was to be apprehended Soone after this Judas and his Band of men sent from the High Priests with Swords and Staves came to seize upon Christ Which when they who were about him saw what would follow They said unto him Lord shall we smite with the Sword His commanding them to buy Swords now was sufficient ground for this question and intimation enough that they might now use them whereupon Christ giving no negative answer One of them which were with Iesus and John directly saith it was Peter smote a servant of the High Priest whose name was Malchus and cut off his right eare Hereupon Jesus answered and said Suffer yee Thus Farre So Luke Marke relates no answer at all reprehending this fact Iohn records his speech to Peter thus Then said Iesus unto Peter Put up thy Sword into the sheath The Cup which my Father hath given me shall I not drinke To which Matthew addes thinkinst thou that I cannot pray to my Father and he shall presently give me more then twelve Legions of Angels But how then shall the Scriptures bee fulfilled that thus it must be So that the reason why Christ bade Peter thus to put up his sword was not because he thought defence of himselfe and Peters smiting now altogether unlawfull in it selfe but onely inconsistent with Gods present providence which it should seeme to crosse Christ was now by Gods eternall decree and the Scriptures prediction which must be necessarily fulfilled to suffer death upon the Crosse for our iniquities should Peter then with the other Disciples have totally resisted his apprehention at this time and proceeded still to smite with the Sword as they began till they had rescued our Saviour he could not then have suffered nor the Scriptures be fulfilled had it not beene for this speciall reason rendred by Christ himselfe to cleare all scruples against the Lawfulnesse of selfe-defence in such cases Peter might still have used his sword to rescue his Master from these Catchpoles violence and if he and his fellowes had beene too weake to withstand them Christ was so farre from imagining that hee might not have lawfully defended himselfe that hee informes them he could and would no doubt have presently commanded whole Legions of Angels from heaven by his Fathers approbation to rescue him from unjust
violence And his Speech to Pilate after his taking plainely iustifies the lawfulnesse of such a forcible defence with Armes to preserve a mans life from unjust execution Iohn 18. 36 If my Kingdome were of this world Then would my Servants fight in my Defence and Rescue that I should Not be delivered to the Iewes but now my kingdom is not from hence All which considered clearely justifies the Lawfulnesse of resisting the Kings or higher Powers Officers in cases of apparant unjust open violence or assaults and withall answers one grand argument against resistance from our Saviours present Example namely Christ himselfe made no resistance when hee was unjustly apprehended Ergo Christians his Followers Ergo no Kings no Magistrates too as well as Christ the King of Kings and Lord of Lords for they are Christians as well as subjects ought not to make any forcible resistance of open violence Which argument is a meere inconsequent because the reason why Christ resisted not these Pursevants and High Priests Officers was onely that his Fathers decree and the Scriptures foretelling his Passion might be fulfilled as himselfe resolves not because hee deemed resistance Vnlawfull which he even then approved though hee practised it not as these Texts doe fully proove Fourthly The lawfulnesse of a defensive Warre against the invading Forces of a Soveraigne is warranted by the example of the City Abel which stood out and defended it selfe against Ioab Davids Generall and his Forces when they besieged and battered it till they had made their peace with the head of Sheba who fled into it for shelter 2 Sam. 20. 14. to 23. And by that of Ester Ch. 8. 8. to 17. chap 9. 1. to 17. pertinent to this purpose Where Haman having gotten the Kings Decree to be sent unto all Provinces for the utter extirpation of the whole Nation of the Iewes the King after Hamans Execution through Gods great mercy and Mordecaies and Queene Esters diligence to prevent this bloody massacre by their Enemies granted to the Iewes in every City by Letters under his Seale To gather themselves together and to stand for their lives to destroy to slay and to cause to perish all the power of the people and Province That would Assault them both litle ones and women and to take the spoile of them for a prey and that the Iewes should be ready against the day to avenge themselves of their enemies Hereupon when the day that the Kings Commandment and Decree for their extirpation drew neere to be put in execution in the day that the enmies of the Iewes hoped to have power over them the Iewes gathered themselves together in their Cities throughout all the Provinces of King Ahasuerus to lay hand on such as sought their hurt and no man could withstand them for the feare of them fell upon all people And all the Rulers of the Provinces and the Lieutenants Deputies and Officers of the King helped the Iewes because the feare of Mordecai fell upon them So the Iewes smote all their enemies with the stroake of the Sword and slaughter and destruction and did what they would unto those that hated them In the Palace they slew eight hundred men and Hamans tenne sonnes on severall dayes And the other Iewes that were in the Provinces gathered themselves together and Stood for their Lives and had rest from their enemies and slew of their foes seventy and five thousand but they laid not their hands on the prey Loe here a Defensive war justified and granted lawfull by the Kings owne Letters to the Iewes against their enemies who by former Charters from him had Commission wholly to extirpate them Neither had this licence of the King in point of Conscience been lawfull had their defence and resistance of the Kings former Commission been wholly unlawfull And the reason of the Kings grant to them to resist and slay their Enemies that would assault them was not simply because their resistance without it and standing for their lives had beene unlawfull by reason of the Kings first unjust Decree which they ought not in Conscience to submit to without repugnancy But onely to enable the Iewes then Captives and scattered abroad one from another in every Province with more convenience securitie boldnesse and courage now to joyne their forces together to resist their malicious potent enemies to daunt them the more thereby Nature it selfe yea and all Lawes in such a bloody Nationall Butchery as this without any just cause at all both taught and enabled every one of the Iewes to stand for his life his Nations Religions preservation even to the last drop of blood Therefore the Letters of the King did not simply enable them to resist their enemies which they might have done without them but give them Authority to destroy and slay the Wives and little children of their Enemies and to take the spoile of them for a prey which they refused to doe because they deemed it unjust notwithstanding the Kings permission and concession which as to these particulars was illegall and more then hee could justly grant This generall Nationall resistance of Gods own people then of their assaulting cruell Enemies even among Strangers in the land of their Captivity under a forraigne Enemy with the former and other following precedents will questionlesse more then conjecturally prove if not infallibly resolve The lawfulnesse of a necessary Defensive Warre and opposition by free Subiects against their Kings assailing Forces which seekes their ruine though armed with their Kings Commission and that without any Ordinance of Parliament authorising them to resist much more then when enabled to oppose them by Ordinances of both Houses as the Iewes were to resist and slay their enemies by this Kings Letters and Authority Thirdly That kind of resistance which hath no one Text nor Example in Scripture to impeach its lawfulnesse but many Texts and precedents to countenance it must doubtlesse be lawfull in point of Conscience But the resisting of Kings invading pillaging destructive Forces who have nothing to plead to justifie all their Villanies but a void illegall Warrant hath no one Text nor example in Scripture to impeach its lawfulnesse for ought I can finde and if there be any such I wish the Opposites would object it for Rom. 13. as I shall shew hereafter doth no waies contradict but approve it But it hath many Texts and precedents to countenance it as the premises and sequell attest Therefore it must doubtlesse bee-lawfull in point of Conscience Fourthly it is confessed by all men yea those who are most intoxicated with an Anabaptisticall spirit condemning all kind of warre refusing to carry Armes to defend themselves against any Enemies Theeves or Pirates that it is lawfull not onely passively to resist their Kings unlawfull Commands and invading Forces but likewise by flight hiding or other pollicies to evade and prevent their violence which is warranted not onely by Moses Davids and Elijahs
Texts authorising men not onely to resist but warre against yea slay their malicious open enemies untill they be subâ—ued or destroyed Exod. 23. 22. 27. Levi. 26. 7. 8. Num. 24. 8. Deut. 20. throughout Iosh c 8. to c. 13. 2 Sam. 22. 38. to 42. 1 Chron. 17. 8. 10. Esth 9. 5. Neither doe the Texts of Mat. 5 39. Luk. 6. 29. But I say unto you that ye resist not evill but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheekâ— turne to him the other also and him that taketh away thy cloake forbid not to take thy câ—ate also prohibit all actuall resistance of publick violence offered by enemies to our persons goods or lawfull defensive warres which precept as is cleare by the context and resolved by Augustine Gratian Alensis and f others extends onely to some private injuries and revenges and to the inward patient preparation of the mind to suffer two injuries rather theÌ„ maliciously to revenge a single one especially in cases where we want ability to resist not to an actuall bearing of all grosse outward injuries to our persons or estates without resistance which precept being given generally to all Christians to Kings and Magistrates as well as Subjects if it be strictly urged prohibits Kings and Magistrates to resist the violence and injuries of the people as much as the people not to repulse the Armes violence and oppressions of their Princes and Governours and that Text of Iames 5. 6. Ye have condemned and killed the just and he doth not resist you which some thinke is meant of Christ alone proves onely that some just men and many Martyrs have beene condemned and killed without resistance as our Saviour was not that it is unlawfull to resist an open enemy theefe or murtherer who comes to kill rob or plunder us against Law and Conscience I read of Saint Andrew that when the people can together in multitudes to rescue him out of the hands of a wicked man and defend him from the injury of death he teaching them both by word and exemple exhorted them not to hinder his martyrdome yet the people lawfully rescued innocent Ionathan from that unjust death which his Father King Saul twice vowed hee should undergoe Some mens patient suffering death and injuries without resistance is no better an argument that all therefore must so suffer without opposition then that all men ought to yeeld their purses up to high-way theeves or their persons goods ships to Turkes and Pyrates without fight or resistance because some yea many have shamefully done it for want of courage when they were able to resist and so have deservedly lost their purses shippes goods liberties and become Turkish Gally-slaves to the ruine of their estates bodies soules which miseries by a manfull just defence they might have easily prevented All which considered I see no ground in Scripture nor reason but that temporall enemies of all kindes which wrongfully invade our persons or estates by open force of Armes in a warlike manner may be resisted with temporall weapons as well as spirituall enemies with spirituall Armes Eighthly That which all Nations in all ages by the very light of nature have constantly practised as just and lawfull must doubtlesse be lawfull in point of conscience if there be no Law of God to the contrary But selfe-defence against invading Tyrants and their instruments hath by the very light of Nature beene constantly practised by all Nations in all ages as just and lawfull which the premises the Appendix the Histories of all ages evidence theire being never any one Nation or Kingdome for ought I finde that ever yet reputed it a thing unlawfull in point of Conscience to resist the open malicious destructive tyranny violence hostility of their unnaturall Princes or that desisted from any such resistance giving themselves up willingly to their outragious lusts and butcheries without any opposition though some private men and Martyres have sometimes done it upon particular reasons as to avoid the scandall of Religion to beare witnesse to the truth for the confirmation and conversion of others or for want of power or oportunity to resist or to avoyd a generall massacre of their fellow Christians or because they were onely a few private men and their religion directly opposite to the Lawes and government under which they lived or the like not because they judged all resistance simply unlawfull as blinde Doctors falsey informe us which I shall prove hereafter and there is no Law of God at all to prohibite such resistance therefore doubtlesse it must be lawfull even in point of conscience Ninthly that which is directly opposite to what is absolutely illegall and unjust in point of conscience and the chiefe law full obstacle and remedy to prevent or redresse it must certainely be just be lawfull in the court of Conscience since that which is directly opposite to that which is simply ill and unjust must necessarily be good and just But necessary just defence by force of Armes is directly opposite to that open Armed violence and tyranny which is absolutely illegall and unjust in point of Conscience and the chiefe lawfull remedy and obstacle to prevent or redresse it as reason experience and the premises evidence Therefore it must necessarily be just and lawfull even in the Court of Conscience Tenthly That resistance which doth neither oppose the Kings royal person nor lawfull Authority must certainely be lawfull in point of conscience But the resistance of the Kings Forces not accompanied with his person in the execution of his unjust commands is neither a resistance of his Royall person for that is absent and his Cavalliers I hope are no Kings nor yet invested with the priviledges of Kings nor yet of his lawfull Authority his illegall Commissions and Commands being meere nullities in Law transferring no particle of his just Authority to those who execute them Therefore it must certainely be lawfull in point of conscience Eleventhly That resistance which is the onely remedy to keepe not onely Kings themselves but every one of their Officers and Souldiers from being absolute Tyrants Monarchs and the denyall whereof equalizeth every souldier and particular Officer to Kings yea God himselfe whose prerogative only it is to have an absolute unresistable wil must doubtlesse be lawful in the Court of Conscience But this necessary defensive resistance now used by the Parliament and Subjects in such For if they may not resist any of the Kings Officers or Souldiers in their plunderings rapines fierings sackings of Townes beating wounding murthering the Kings leige people and the like will not every common Souldier and Officers be an absolute Tyran equall in Monarchie to the great Turke himself and paramount the King who hath no absolute irresistable Soveraignety in these particulars Either therefore this resistance must be granted not onely as lawfull but simply necessary else every officer and common Souldier wiâ—l be more than an absolute
King and Monarch every subject worse than a Turkish slave and exposed to as many uncontrolable Soveraignes as there are Souldiers in the Kings Army be their conditions never so vile their qualitie never so mean and the greatest Peeres on the Parliaments party must be irresistably subject to these new absolute Soveraignes lusts and wills Twelfthly if all these will not yet satisfie Conscience in the Lawfulnesse the justnesse of the Parliaments and peoples present forcible resistance of the Kings Captaines and Forces though Armed with an illegall Commission which makes nothing at all in the case because voyd in Law there is this one Argument yet remaining which will satisfie the most scrupulous malignant opposite Conscience That necessary forcible resistance which is Authorised and Commanded by the Supreamest lawfull power and highest Soveraigne Authority in the Realme must infallibly be just and lawfull even in point of Conscience by the expresse Resolution of Rom. 13. and our opposites owne confession who have no other Argument to prove the Offensive warre on the Kings part Lawfull but because it is commanded and the Parliaments and Subjects Defensive Armes Unlawfull but because prohibited by the King whom they salsely affirm to be the highest Soveraigne power in the Kingdome above the Parliament and whole Realme collectively considered But this resistance of the Kings Popish malignant invading Forces is Authorized and Commanded by the expresse Votes and Ordinances of both Houses of Parliament which I have already undeniably manifested to be the Supreamest Lawfull Power and Soveraignest Authority in the Realme Paramount the King himselfe who is but the Parliaments and Kingdomes Publicke Royall Servant for their good Therefore his Resistance must infallibly be just and Lawfull even in Point of Conscience Thus much for the Lawfulnesse in Court of Conscience of resisting the Kings unjustly assaulting Forces armed with his Commission I now proceede to the justnesse of opposing them by way of forcible resistance when accompanied with his personall presence That the Kings Army of Papists and Malignants invading the Parliaments or Subjects persons goods Lawes Liberties Religion may even in Conscience bee justly resisted with force though accompanied with his person seemes most apparently cleare to me not only by the preceeding Reasons but also by many expresse Authorities recorded and approved in Scripture not commonly taken notice of as First By the ancientest precedent of a defensive warre that we read of in the world Gen. 14. 1. to 24. where the five Kings of Sodom Gomorrah Admah Zeboiim and Zoar rebelling against Chedolaomer King of Nations after they had served him twelve yeeres defended themselves by armes and battle against his assaults and the Kings joyned with him who discomfiting these five Kings pillaging Sodom and Gomorrah and taking Lot and his goods along with them as a pâ—eâ— hereupon Abraham himselfe the Father of the faithfull in defence of his Nephew Lot to rescue him and his substance from the enemie taking with him 318. trained men of his owne family pursued Chedorlaomer and the Kings with him to Dan assaulted them in the night smote and pursued them unto Hoba regained all the goods and prisoners with his Nephew Lot and restored both goods and persons freely to the King of Sodom thereby justifying his and his peoples forcible defence against their invading enemies in the behalfe of his captivated plundred Nephew and Neighbors Secondly by the Example of the Israelities who were not onely King Pharaoh his Subjects but Bondmen too as is evident by Exod ch 1. to 12. Deut. 6. 21. c. 7. 8. c. 15. 15. c. 16. 12. c. 24 18. 22. Ezra 9. 9. Now Moses and Aaron being sent by God to deliveer them from their AEgyptian bondage after 430. yeares captivity under colour of demanding but three dayes liberty to goe into the wildernesse to serve the Lord and Pharoah notwithstanding all Gods Miracles and Plagues refusing still to let them depart till enforced to it by the slaughter of the Egyptians first borne as soone as the Israelites were marching away Pharaoh and the AEgyptians repenting of their departure pursued them with their Chariots and Horses and a great army even to the red Sea to reduce them here upon the Israelites being astonished and murmuring against Moses giving themselves all for dead men Moses sayd unto the people feare ye not stand still and see the Salvation of the Lord which he will shew to you this day for the AEgyptians whom you have seene to day ye shall see them againe no more for ever the Lord shall fight for you c. And hereupon God himselfe discomfited routed and drowned them all in the red Sea I would demaund in this case whether the Isralites might not here lawfully for their owne redemption from unjust bondage have fought against and resisted their Lord King Pharaoh and his invading Host accompanied with his presence had they had power and hearts to doe it as well as God himselfe who fought against and destroyed them on their behalfe If so as all men I thinke must grant unlesse they will censure God himselfe then a defensive warre in respect of life and liberty onely is just and Lawfull even in conscience by this most memorable story Thirdly by that example recorded Iudges 3. 8. 9. 10. where God growing angry with the Israelites for their Apostacie and Idolatry sold them here was a divine title into the hands of Cushan-Rishathaim King of Mesopotamia and the children of Israel served him 8. yeares Here was a lawfull title by conquest and 8 yeeres submission seconding it But when the children of Israel cryed unto the Lord the Lord raised up a deliverer to them even Othniel the sonne of Kenaz and the Spirit of the Lord came upon him and he went out to warre and the Lord delivered Cushan-rishatiam King of Mesopotamia into his hands and his hand prevailed against him so the land had rest 40. yeeres Loe here a just defensive warre approved and raised up by God and his Spirit in an ordinary manner only as I take it by encouraging the Instruments wherein a conquering King for Redemption former liberties is not onely resisted but conquered taken prisoner and his former dominion abrogated by those that served him as conquered subjects Fourthly by the example of Ehud and the Israelites Iudges chap. 3. 11. to 31 where we finde God himself strengthning Eglon King of Moab against the Israelites for their sinnes who thereupon gathering an Army smote Israel possessed their Cities so as the Israelites served this King 18. yeeres Here was a title by conquest approved by God submitted to by the Israelites yet after all this when the children of Israel cryed unto the Lord he raised them up a deliverer namely Ehud who stabbing Eglonn the King in the belly under pretext of private conference with him and escaping he therupon blew the trumpet commanded the Israelites to follow him to the warre slew ten thousand valiant men of
had delegated to Moses and Aaron without any injury or injustice at all once offered to them or any assault upon them Ergo marke the Non-sence of this argumentation no Subjects may lawfully take up meere necessary defensive Armes in any case to resist the bloody Tyrannie Oppression and outrages of wicked Princes or their Cavalleires when they make warre upon them to destroy or enslave them An Argument much like this in substance No man ought to rise up against an honest Officer or Captaine in the due execution of his Office when he offers him no injury at all Therefore he ought not in conscience to resist him when he turnes a theefe or murtherer and felloniously assaults him to rob him of his purse or cut his throate Or private men must not causelesly mutinie against a lawfull Magistrate for doing justice and performing his duty Ergo the whole Kingdome in Parliament may not in Conscience resist the Kings Captaines and Cavalleeres when they most unnaturally and impiously assault them to take away their Lives Liberties Priviledges Estates Religion oppose and resist justice and bring the whole Kingdome to utter desolation The very recitall of this argument is an ample satisfactory refutation of it with this addition These seditious Levites Rebelled against Moses and Aaron onely because God himselfe had restrained them from medling with the Priests Office which they would contemptuously usurpe and therefore were most severely punished by God himself against whose expresse Ordinance they Rebelled Ergo the Parliament and Kingdome may in no case whatsoever though the King be bent to subvert Gods Ordinances Religion Lawes Liberties make the least resistance against the king or his invading forces under paine of Rebellion High Treason and eternall condemnation This is Doctor Fernes and some others Bedlam Logicke Divinity The next is this Thou shalt not revile the Gods nor curse the Ruler of thy people Ex. 22. 28. Eccl. 10. 20. Curse not the King no not in thy thought and curse not the rich in thy bed-Chamber which is well explained by Prov. 17. 26. It is not good to strike Princes for equitie Ergo it is unlawfull for the Subjects to defend themselves against the Kings Popish depopulating Cavaleers I answer the first text pertaines properly to Judges and other sorts of Rulers not to Kings not then in being among the Israelites the second to rich men as well as Kings They may as well argue then from these texts that no Iudges nor under-rulers nor rich men whatsoever though never so unjust or wicked may or ought in conscience to be resisted in their unjust assaults Riots Robberies no though they be bent to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties as that the King and his Souldiers joyntly or severally considered may not be resisted yea these acute disputants may argue further by this new kinde of Logicke Christians are expresly prohibited to curse or revile any man whatsoever under paine of damnation Rom. 12. 14. Mat. 5. 44. Levit. 19 14. Numb 23. 7. 8. 2 Sam. 16. 9. Levit. 20. 9. c. 24 P 1. 14. 23. Levit. 20. 9. Prov. 20. 20. 1 Cor. 6. 10 1 Cor. 4. 12. 1 Pet. 2. 23. Jude 9. Ergo we ought to resist no man whatsoever no not a theefe that would rob us cut-throate Cavaleers that would murther us lechers that would ravish us under paine of damnation What pious profitable Doctrine thinke you is this All cursings and railings are simply unlawfull in themselves all resistance is not so especially that necessary we now discourse of against unlawfull violence to ruine Church and State To argue therefore all resistance is simply unlawfull because cursing and reviling of a different nature are so is ill Logicke and worse Divinity If the objectors will limit their resistance to make the Argument sensible and propose it thus All cursing and reviling of Kings and Rulers for executing justice impartially for so is the chiefe intendment of the place objected delinquents being apt to clamour against those who justly censure them is unlawfull Ergo the forcible resisting of them in the execution of justice and their lawfull authority is unlawfull the sequell I shall grant but the Argument will be wholy impertinent which I leave to the Objectors to refine The third Argument is this That which peculiarly belongs to God no man without his speciall authority ought to meddle with But taking up Armes peculiarly belongeth to he Lord. Deut 32. 35. Where the Lord saith vengeance is mine especially the sword which of all temporall vengeance is the greatest The Objector puts no Ergo or conclusion to it because it concludes nothing at all to purpose but onely this Ergo The King and Cavalleeres must lay downe their Armes and swords because God never gave them any speciall commission to take them up Or Ergo no man but God must weare a sword at least of revenge and â—hether the kings and Cavalleers Offensive or the Parliaments meere Defensive sword be the sword of vengeance and malice let the world determine to the Objectors shame The fourth is from Eccles 8. 2. 3. 4. I councell thee to keepe the Kings Commandment and that in regard of the Oath of God Be not hasty to goe out of his sight stand not in an evill thing for he doth whatsoever pleaseth him where the word of a king is there is power and who may say unto him what dost thou This Text administers the Opposites a double Argument The first is this All the Kings Commands are to be kept of all his Subjects by vertue of the Oathes of supremacy alleigance and the late protestation including them both Ergo by vertue of these Oathes we must not resist his Cavalleeres but yeeld our thoates to their swords our purses and estates to their rapines our chastities to their Lecheries our Liberties to their Tyrannies our Lawes to their lusts our Religion to their Popish Superstition and Blasphemies without any opposition because the king hath oft commanded us not to resist them But seeing the Oath and Law of God and those oathes of ours obleige us onely to obey the Kings just legall commands and no other not the Commands and lusts of evill Councellors and Souldiers this first Argument must be better pointed ere it will wound our cause The second this The king may lawfully do whatsoever pleaseth him Ergo neither are He or his Forces to be resisted To which I answer that this verse relates onely unto God the next antecedent who onely doth and may doe what he pleaseth and that both in heaven and earth Psal 135. 6. Psal 115. 3 Esay 46. 10. not to Kings who neither may nor can doe what they please in either being bound both by the Laws of God man and their Coronation Oathes perchance the oath of God here meant rather then that of supremacie or alleigance to doe onely what is lawfull and just not what themselves shall please But admit it
meant of Kings not God First the text saith not that a king may lawfully doe what he pleaseth but he doth whatsoever pleaseth him Solomâ—n himselfe committed idolatry built Temples for Idolatrous worship served his idolatrous wives Gods married with many idolatrous wives greivously oppressed his people c. for which God threatned to rent the kingdome from himself as he did the ten Tribes from his son for those sinnes of his David committed adultery and wilfully numbred the people and what King Jeroboam Manasseh Ahab other wicked Kings have done out of the pleasure and freedome of their lawlesse wills to the infinite dishonour of God the ruine of themselves their posterities Kingdomes is sufficiently apparent in Scripture was all therefore just lawfull unblameable because they did herein whatsoever they pleased not what was pleasing to God If not as all must grant then your foundation failes that Kings may lawfully doe whatsoever they will and Solomons words must be taken all together not by fragments and these latter words coupled with the next preceeding Stand not in an evill matter and then Pauls words will well interpret his Rom. 13. 4. But if thou doe that which is evill be afraid for he beareth not the sword in vaine for he is the minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon them that doe evill So that the genuine sence of the place is and must be this Stand not in an evill matter for the king path an absolute power to doe whatsoever he pleaseth in way of justice to punish thee if thou continue obstinate in thy evill courses to pardon thee if thou confesse submit and crave pardon for them Ergo the king and his Cavalleeres have an absolute power to murther plunder destroy his Subjects subvert Religion and he and his Forces must not herein be resisted is an ill consequent from such good premises The third is this Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him what dost thou that is expostulate with censure him for doing justly as Iob 34. 17. 18. 19. expound it Ergo the king or his Forces may not be resisted in any case they might rather conclude Therefore neither Kingdome nor Parliament nor any Subject or person whatsoever ought to demand of the king to what end or why he hath raised Forces and Armed Papists against the Parliament and Protestant Religion These Court-Doctors might as truely conclude from hence If the king should command us to say Masse in his Chappell or our Parishes to adorne Images to turne professed Masse-priests c. to vent any Erronious Popish Doctrines to pervert the Scriptures to support Tyrannie and lawlesse cruelty we must and will as some of us doe cheerefully obey for where the word of a King is there is power and we may not say unto him what dost thou If a King should violently ravish matrons defloure virgins unnaturally abuse youth cut all his Subjects throates fire their houses sacke their Cities subvert their liberties and as Bellarmine puts the case of the Popes absolute irresistible authority send millions of soules to hell yet no man under paine of damnation may or ought to demande of him Domine cur ita facis Sir what doe you But was this the holy Ghosts meaning thinke you in this place If so then Nathan was much to blame for reprehending king Davids Adultery Azariah and the 40. Priests who withstood King Vzziah when he would have offered incense on the incense Altar and thrust him out of the Temple telling him it pertaineth not to thee Vzziah to burne incense to the Lord c. Were no lesse then Traytors John Baptist was much over-seene to tell King Herod It is not lawfull for thee to have thy brothers wife The Prophet who sharpely reprehended Amaziah for his Idolatry and new altar 2 Chron 25. 15. 16. was justly checked by the king Eliiah was to be rebuked for telling Ahab so plainely of his faults and sending such a harsh message to King Ahaziah Elisha much to be shent for using such harsh language to King Jehoram 2 Kings 3. 13. 14. yea Samuel and Hanani deserved the strappado for telling King Saul and Asa That they had done foolishly 1 Sam. 13. 3. 2 Chron. 15. 9. The meaning therefore of this Text so much mistaken unlesse we will censure all these Prophets and have Kings not onely irresistible but irreprehensible for their wickednesse is onely this No man may presume to question the kings just actions warranted by his lawfull royall power this text being parallel with Rom. 13. 1. 2. 3. 4. What then Ergo None must question or resist his or his Cavalleers unjust violence and proceedings not the Parliament the supremest Iudicature and Soveraigne Power in the Kingdome is a ridiculous consequence yet this is all this Text doth contribute to their present dying bad cause The 5. is that usually objected Text of Psal 105. 14 15. Touch not mine annointed Ergo the King and his Cavaleers must not be so much as touched nor resisted I wonder they did not as well argue Ergo none must henceforth kisse his Majesties hand since it cannot be done without touching him neither must his Barber trim him nor his Bedchamber-men attire him for feare of high Treason in touching him And the Cavaleers must not henceforth be arrested for their debts apprehended for their robberies and murthers neither must the Chyrurgion dresse their wounds or pock-soars or otherwise touch them so dangerous is it to touch them not out of fear of infection but for fear of transgressing this sacred Text scarce meant of such unhallowed God-dammeeâ— Such conclusions had been more literall and genuine then the first But to answer this long since exploded triviall Objection not named by Dr Ferne though revived by others since him I say first that this Text concernes not kings at all but the true anoynted Saints of God their Subjects whom kings have been alwayes apt to oppresse and persecute witnesse Psal 2. 2. c. Act. 4. 26. 27. Act. 12. 1 2 3 with all sacred and Ecclesiasticall Histories ancient or moderne This is most apparent first because these words were spoken by God to Kings themselves as the Text is expresse Psal 105 14 15. 1 Chron. 16. 20 21. He suffered no man to do them wrong but reproved even KINGS for their sakes saying even to king themselves namely to king Pharaoh an king Abimâ—lech Gen. 12. 10. to 20. Chap. 20. and 26 1. to 17. 29 Touch not mine Anointed and do my Prophets no harm Therefore not meant of kings Secondly because these words were spoken directly and immediately of Abraham Isaac Iacob their wives and families as it is evident by Verse 6. the whole series of the Psalme which is Historicall the forecited Texts of Genesis to which the words relate the punctuall confession of Augustine and all other Expositors on this Psalm Now neither they
both But this anointing in subiects can neither exempt their persons from necessary iust resistance if they unlawfully assault or war upon their Superiours equalls inferiours nor free them from arrests imprisonments arraignments deprivations or capitall censures if they offend and demerit them as we all know by Scripture and experience Therefore it can transfer no such corporall immunities or exemptions from all or any of these to kings but onely exempt them from unlawfull violence and injuries in point of right so far forth as it doth other Subjects In a word this annointing being common to all Christians can give no speciall Prerogative to Kings but onely such as are common to all Subiects as they are Christians Secondly admit it be meanâ— of an actuall externall anoynting yet that of it self affords Kings no greater priviledge then the inward unction of which it is a type neither can it priviledge them from just resistance or just corporall censures of all sorts First it cannot priviledge them from the iust assaults invasions resistance corporall punishments of other forraign kings Princes States Subiects not subordinate to them who upon any iust cause or quarrell may lawfully resist assault wound apprehend imprison slay depose iudge censure forraigne kings even to death as is apparent by Sâ—hon King of the Amorites and Og the king of Bashan slain the King of Ai hanged by Ioshua the five kings of Canaan that besieged Gibeon on whose ne-ks Ioshua made his men of war to put their feet then smote slew and hanged them upon five trees Who also assaulted resisted imprisoned condemned slew executed divers other kings of Canaan to the number of thirty one in all by king Adonibezek Eglon Agag with other Heathen Kings imprisoned stabbed hewen in pieces by the Israelites If any obiect These kings were not actually annoynted which they cannot prove since Cyrus an Heathen King is stiled Gods annoynted no doubt Saul was an annoynted King if not the first in the world 1 Sam. 10. 1. yet he was justly resisted wounded pursued by the Philistines 1 Sam. 31. 3. Iosiah an annoynted good King was slain by Pharaoh Necho King of Egypt whom he rashly encountred King Ahab was slain by an Archer of the King of Assyria King Ioram and Ahaziah were both slain by Iehu by Gods command Iehoaaz was deposed by the King of Egypt Iehoiakim and Iehoiakin both deposed fettered and kept prisoners by the King of Babylon bylone who also y appâ—eherded dâ—posed judicially condemned King Zedechiah put out his eyes and sent him prisoner to Bâ—hylon bound with fetters of brasse So Manasses was deposed bound with fetters of brasse and carryed captive by the Captaines of the King of Assyria Amaziah King of Iudah was taken prisoner by Iehoash King of Israel Infiâ—ite are the presidents in stories where kings of one Nation in just warrs have been assaulted invaded imprisoned deposed slain by Princes and Subjects of another Nation and that justly as all grant without exception neither their annointing nor Kingship being any exemption or priviledge to them at all in respect of forraigners in cases of hostility to whom they are no Soveraigns no more then to any of their Subjects Whereas if this royall annointing did make their persons absolutly sacred and inviolable no forraign Princes or Subjects could justly apprehend imprison smite wound slay depose or execute them Secondly Kings who are suborordinate Homagers and Subjects to other Kings or Emperours though annointed may for Treasons and Rebellions against them he lawfully resisted assaulted imprisoned deposed judged to death and executed because as to them they are but Subjects notwithâ—â—anging their annointing as appears by sundâ—y presidents in our own and forraign Histories and is generally confessed by the learned Thirdly the Roman Greek and German Experours though annointed the ancient Kings of France Spain Arragon Britain Hungary Poland Denmarke Bohemia India Sparta and other places who were not absolute Monarchs have in former ages been lawfully resisted imprisoned deposed and some of them judicially adjudged to death and executed by their owne Senates Parliaments Diets States for their oppression mal-administration tyranny and that justly as Bodin Grotius with others affirm notwithstanding any pretence that they were annointed Soveraigns Fourthly Popes Bishops and Priests anciently were and at this present in the Romish Churches are actually annointed as well as Kings and we know the Popish Clergy and Canonists have frequently alledged this Text Touch not mine annointed and doe my Prophets no harme in Councels Decretalls and solemâ— debates in Parliament to prove their exemption from the arrests judgements capitall censâ—res and proceedings of Kings and secular Iudges for any crimes whatsoever because forsooth they were Gods annointed intended in this Text not Kings therefore Kings and Seculars must not touch nor offer any the least violence to their persons no not in a way of justice By colour of this Text they exceedingly deluded the world in this particular for â—undreds of yeeres But in the seventh yeer of Hen. the 8. in Dr. Standish his case debated before a Committee of both Houses of Parliament and all the Iudges of England this Text being chiefly insisted on to prove the Clergies exemption Jure Divino was wholly exploded in England and since that in Germany France other Realms and notwithstanding its protection many Fopes Bishops and Clergy-men in all Kingdomes ages for all their annointing have for their misdemeanors not only been resisted apprehended imprisones but deprived degraded hanged quartered burned as well as other men Yea Abiathar the High Priest was deposed by S. â—omon for his Treason against him notwithstanding his Annointing their annointing giving them not the smallest immunity to doe ill or not to suffer all kinds of corporall capitall punishments for their misdemeanors If this actuall annointing then cannot lawfully exempt or secure Priests and Prelates persons nor the Pope himselfe from the premises how then can it justly priviledge the persons of Kings Fifthly among the Papists all infants either in their baptisme or confirmation are actually annointed with their consecrated Chrisme and with extream unction to boot at last cast which they make a Sacrament and so a thing of more divine soveraign Nature then the very annointing of Kings at their inauguration which they repute no Sacrament as being no where commanded by God But neither of these actuall unctions exempt all or any of those annointed with it from resistance or any corporall punishments or just censures of any king therefore the very annointing of Kings cannot doe it Sixthly the Ceremony of annointing kings as Cassanaeus with others write is peculiar onely to the German Emperor the King of Ierusalem the King of France the King of England and the King of Sicily but to no other kings else who are neither annointed nor crowned as he affirmes so that it cannot give any priviledge
at all to any but onely to these 4. not other kings who are not anointed Now seeing only hese 4. kings are actually anointed yea lawfull Kings and their persons sacred even before they are annointed or crowned yea other kings persons as of Spain Hungary Denmark Sweden Poland c. who are not annointed are as sacred as exempt from danger as those who are enoyled And seeing the annointing of kings is at this day a meer arbitrary humane Ceremony not injoyned by diviâ—e authority nor common to all Kings who are Kings before their Coronations it is most certain and infallible that this enoyling in and of it selfe derives no personall Prerogatives or Immunities at all to kings much lesse an absolute exemption from all actuall resistance in cases of unjust invasions on their Subjects or from the censures of their Parliaments for publike distructive exorbitances as most have hitherto blindly beleeved Neither will the frequent next objected speeches of David concerning Soul Impeach the premises 1 Sam. 24. 6. 10. c. 26. 9. 11. 2. 2 Sam. 1. 12. 16. The Lord forbid that I should do this thing unto my Master the Lords Annointed to stretch forth my hand against him seeing he is the Lords Annointed I will not put forth my hand against my Lord for he he is the Lords annointed And David said to Abishai Destroy him not for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Annointed and he guiltlesse The Lord forbid that I should stretch forth his hand against the Lords Annointed The Lord delivered thee into my hand to day but I would not stretch forth mine hand against the Lords Annointed How waâ— thou not afraid to siretch forth thy hand against the Lords Annointed Thy blood shall be upon thy head for thy mouth hath testified that thou hast slain the Lords Annointed Which severall Texts seem at first sight to insinuate that Sauls very externall annointing was that which did secure his person from assauls and violence and that it is unlawfull even by way of defence forcibly with Armes to resist a persecuting unjustly invading king because he is annointed But these Texts if duly pondered will warrant neither of these conclusions First then I answer that Sauls bare annointing considered as an externall Ceremony to declare him a lawfull King did not could not adde any immunity to his person against Davids or any other Subjects just violent resistance as the premised reasons manifest but it was onely his royall Soveraign Office conferred on him by God and the people to which his externall annointing by Samuel was but a preparation That which made Saul with other his successours a king was not his bare annointing For Saul himselfe was annointed by Samuel before he was made and chosen King not when he was made King So David Hazael selu with others were annointed before they were actuall Kings and many of their Successors by descent were reall kings before they were annointed some of them being not annointed at all for ought we read therefore their unction made them not kings since neither simply necessary nor essentiall to their being kings Nor did Sauls annointing only preceding his Regality make his person sacred or any other kings persons for then it would follow That if Saul had not been actually annointed or had continued king for some yeeres without this annointing then David in such a case might lawfully have slain him without check of conscience and that the persons of kings not at all annointed and of hereditary kings before their Coronations till they are annointed should not be sacred nor exempt from violence which is both false and perillous to affirm but it was his Soveraign Royall Authority over David then his Son-in-law Servant Subject which restrained him from offering violence to his person Soul then being thus priviledged not because he was annointed but because he was an annointed king and that not quatenus Annointed but quatenus King the true sense and genuine interpretation of these Texts must be That Sauls person was sacred exempt from his Subjects violence not because he was annointed as if that only did priviledge him but because he was a lawfull king appointed by the Lord himselfe the Lords annointed being but a periphrasis or forme of speech wherein the Geremony of annointing is used for the Regality or kingly power it selfe declared not conferred by annointing and in plain words without any figure it is put for the Lords King that is a King appointed by the Lord in which sence God calls Christ my King and David stiles himselfe x Gods King Sauls Royall Authority without his annointing not his annointing predestinating him to his Authority being the ground of this his immunity from Davids violence Secondly Saul was annointed some space before he was made King and David many yeere before hee came to the Crowne I would then demand of any man if Saul or David after their unction and before their election and inauguration to the Crown had invaded or assaulted any of the people in an hostile manner whether they might not have justly resisted repulsed yea slain them to in their own necessary defence If not then one Subject may not repulse the unjust violence of another in an elective kingdome if by possibility he may after wards be chosen king though for the present he be neither actually king nor Magistrate but a Shepheard as David was Psal 78. 70 71. which I presume none will affirm I am certain none can prove If so then it was not Sauls annointing but onely his Royall Authority which made David thus to spare his life his person So that our Opposites pressing this Argument only from his Annointing is both false and idle as all the premises demonstrate But to set the Argument right I answer thirdly That all which these Texts and Davids example prove is but this That Subjects ought not wilfully or purposely to murder or offer violence to the persons of their kings especially in cold blood when they doe not actually assault them Ergo they may not resist repulse their personall actuall assaults nor oppose their cut-throat Cavaleers when they make an unjust warre against them Which Argument is a meer Non sequitur For 1. Davids example extends only to Sauls own person not to his Souldiers who were neither kings nor Gods Annointed and whom David no doubt would have resisted and slain too had they assaulted him though he spared Saul as Dr. Fern himselfe insinuates in these words Davids Guard that he had about him was onely to secure his person against the cut-throats of Saul if sent to take away his life c. He was annoynted and designed by the Lord to succeed Saul and therefore he might use an extraordinary way of safe-guarding his person Therefore he and his Guard would and might doubtlesse have with a safe conscience resisted repulsed Sauls cut-throat Souldiers had they assaulted David to take
away his life And iffo then the Kings Cut-throat Cavalleers by his own confession may lawfully be resisted repulsed slain in a defensive way by the Parliaments forces now Secondly the argument is absurd because we may forcibly resist and repulse with safe conscience those whom we may not wilfully slay If a man assaults me to beat or wound me I may resist repulse him with violence but I may not kill him in mine own defence without murder or manslaughter unlesse I could not otherwise preserve my own life by slight or resistance Doctor Ferne grants that a Subject may in his own private defence lawfully ward off the Kings own blows and hold his hands in case of sudden and illegall assaults much more then of malicious and premeditated but yet denies he may either wound or kill him and that truely To argue therefore from Davids example and words The King may not with safe conscience be wittingly slain by his subjects Ergo He and his Cavaleers may not be forcibly resisted repulsed by them for their own defence and preservation is a grosse inconsequent by the Doctors own confession Thirdly there is nothing in all these speeches or the practise or in David pertinent to the case in dispute for when Davids men moved him to kill Saul and would have risen up against him to slay him David refused to act or suffer his men to do it neither Saul not any of his men did actually assault David or his followers nor so much as once discover them but Saul went casually to cover his feet into the Cave where they lay hid which done he rose up and went on his way not once espying David though he cut off the skirt of his Robe privily nor any of his men with him To argue therefore That David and his men might not with a safe conscience stretch forth their hands and rise up against their Soveraigne king Saul to kill him thus in cold blood when he assaulted them not nor so much as thought of their being in the Cave and went out of it quietly not discovering them Ergo they might not they would not in conscience have resisted repulsed him or his Forces had they assaulted or given them battell in the Cave is a Non-sence Conclusion just in effect the same with this I may not resist or repulse one who assaulrs me not Ergo I may not resist one that actually assaults me to take away my life or to beat rob wound me What Logick Reason Law or Divinitie is there in such an argument So after this when Abishai said to David God hath delivered Saul thine enemie into thy hand this day now therefore let me smite him I pray thee with the spear even to the earth at once I will not smite him the second time And David said to Abishai Destroy him not for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Anoynted to wit to slay him purposely as Abishai intended and be guiltlesse The Text is expresse That Saul and his men were then in their own Trenches fast a sleep because a deep sleep from the Lord was fallen upon them David and Abishai were here the onely affailants they came into Sauls Trenches he and his whole army were in so sound a sleep that they came to Sauls own person took away with them his Spear and the Cruse or water from his Bolster and departed not being once discerned No man resists assaults discovers them To slay Saul thus in cold blood without any assault or present provocation and especially upon a private quartell had been Treachery and impiety in a Son-in-Law a Servant a Subject a â—uccessour and to do it with the hazard of their own lives had any of Sauls Army been awakened at the stroke Abishai would have given him as probably they might have been they being but two and within their enemies Trenches in the midst of the Army who might have easily and speedily slain them had been rashnesse indiscretion their departure with the Spear and Cruse was more Heroicall Loyall prudentiall To conclude therefore as our Opposites do from this speech and example That David thought it unlawfull in point of Conscience for him or Abishai to murther his Sâ—veraign Lord King Saul when he and his men were thus fast asleep in the midst of their Trenches offering them no wrong making no actuall assaults upon them Ergo they could not would not justly with safe consciences have forcibly defended themselves against Saul and his Army had they been assaulted by them in their own Trenches is a transcendent absurdity refuted by the very next words of David to Abishai at that instant 1 Sam. 26. 10. And David said furthermore As the Lord liveth the Lord shall smite him or his day shall come to die or he shall DESCEND INTO BATTELL AND PERISH which intimates that if Saul would force him to a battell then he might lawfully defend himselfe against his violence though he might not murther him now in his sleep when he did him no hard and if he casually perished in the battell it was Sauls own wilfull default not his who could not disswade him by all this his fair carriage and sparing of his life when he had those two advantages to slay him from his violent prosecution nor yet succeed him in the Crown as God had appointed and foretold should he suffer him to murther him and his men in battell without resistance Yea Davids earnestnesse to go with Achish and the Pallistines to the battell against Sanl wherein he perished 1 Sam. 2â— unlesse we will taxe Davide for a notable Hypocrite and dissembler unanswerably evidenâ—eth that he deemed it lawfull to resist to encounter Saul and his Forces in battell not withstanding his person might chance to perish in the fight though not to slay him treacheously and basely upon the precedent advantages And his slaying of that lying Amalekite who brought him tydings of Sauls death reporting that himself had slain him to gain a reward from David he being then one of Sauls souldiers as it seems concludes onely that it was not lawfull for any of Sauls own men to saly him by his own command Not that resistance of him in the open battell was unlawfull in point of conscience Other answer might be given to this Objection concerning David and Saul As 1. that this difference was but private and personall between Saul and David David being then Sauls private subject Servant Son in Law not publike between Saul his whole Parliament or Kingdom now many things are unlawfull to be done in private quarrels which are iust and honourable in publike differences Secondly that David himself though he thus forbore to murther Saul yet he tels him 1. Sam. 24 10 11 12. This day thine eyes have seen how that the Lord had delivered thee to day into mine hand in the Cave and some had me kill thee but mine eye SPARED THEE and I said I will not put forth
must pray to God to restore their health Ergo they must take no Physick but onely pray All men are expresly commanded to crie and call upon God in the day of trouble Ergo they must use no meanes but prayer to free themselves from trouble pretty Logick Reason Divinity fitter for derision then any serious Answer This is all this Text concludes and that grosly mistaken Speech of Saint Ambrose Christians weapons are Prayers and Tears of which anon iâ— its due place In one word prayer no more excludes resistance then resistance prayer both of them may and sometimes when defence is necessary as now ought to concurre so that our Court Doctors may as well argue as some Prelates not long since did in word and deed Ministers ought to pray and Gods House is an Oratory for prayer Ergo they must not Preach atleast â—ery seldom or make his House an Auditory for Preaching Or as rationally reason from this Text That Subjects must cry out to God against their kings oppressions Ergo they must not petition their Kings much lesse complain to their Parliament for relief as conclude from thence Ergo they may in no case resist the king or his invading Forces though they indeavour to subvert Religion Laws Liberties as the Doctor himself states the controversie whose arguments will hardly satisfie conscience being so voyd of reason sence yea science The eighth is this None of the Prophets in the old Testament reprehending the Kings of Israel and Iudeh for their grosse Iaolatry cruelty oppression did call upon the Elder of the people for the duty of resistance neither do we finde the people resisting or taking up Arms against any of their kings no not against Ahab or Manasseh upon any of these grounds Ergo resistance is unlawfull To which I must reply first That none of the Prophets did ever forbid resistance in such cases under pain of Damnation as our new Doctors do now Ergo it was lawfull because not prohibited Secondly that as none of the people were then inhibited to resist so not dehorted from it therefore they might freely have done it had they had hearts and zeal to do it Thirdly Iosephus resolves expresly That by the very Law of God Deuter. 17. If the King did contrary to that Law multiply silver gold and horses to himself more then was fitting the-Israelites might lawfully resist him and were bound to do it to preserve themselves from Tyrannie Therefore no doubt they might have lawfully resisted their Kings Idolatry cruelty oppressions Fourthly Hulderichus Zuinglius a famous Protestant Divine with others positively affirms That the Israelites might not onely lawfully resist but likewise deposeâ— heâ—r Kings for their wickednesses and Idolatries yea That all the people were justly punished by God because they removed not their flagitious idolatrous Kings and Princes out of their places which he proves by Ierem 15. where after the four Plagues there recited the Prophet subjoynes the cause of them saying Verse 4. I will give them in fury to all the Kingdoms of the Earth that is I will stirre up in fury all the kings of the earth against them because of Manasseh the son of Hezekiah king of Iudah for that which he did in Ierusalem This Manasseh had committed many wickednesses by Idolatrie and the stedding of innocent blood as we may see in the one and twentieth Chapter of the second of the Kings for which evills the Lord grievously punished the people of Israel Manasseh shed overmuch innocent blood untill he had filled Ierusalem even to the mouth with his sins wherewith he made Iudah to sinne that it might do evill before the Lord Therefore because Manasseh King of Iudah did these most vile abominations above all that the Amorites had done before him and made the Land of Iudah to sin in his undeanesse therefore thus saith the Lord God of Israel Behold I will bring evill upon Ierusalem and Iudah that whosever shall hear both his ears shall tingle c. In summe if the Iews had not thus permitted their King to be wicked WITHOVT PVNISMENT they had not been so grievâ—â—nsly punished by God We ought to pull and crost away even our eye that offends so a hand and foot c. If the Israelites had thus DE OSED Manassch by consent and suffrages of all or the greatest part of the multitude they had not been so grievessly punished of God So Zuinglius with whom even B. Rilson himself in some sort accords who in de ending interpreting his opinion câ—ntesseth That it is a question among the Learned What Soveraignty the whole people of Israel had over their Kings confessing that the peoples resouing Ionathan that he died not when Saul would have put him to dâ—â—th Davids speech to the peoâ—le when he purposed to reduce the Arke all the Congregations speech and carriage toward Rehoboam when they came to make him King with the pâ—ople speech to Ieremy Thou shalt die the death have perswaded some and might lead Zuingliâ—s to think that the people of Israel notwithstanding they called for a King yet REâ—ERVED TO THEMSELVES SVFFICIENT AVTHORITY TO OVERRVLE THEIR KING IN THOSE THINGS WHICH SEEMED EXPEDIENT AND NEEDFVLL FOR THE PVBLIKE WLLFARE else God would not punish the people for the kings iniquity which they must suffer and not redresse Which opinion if as Orthodox as these learned Divines and Iosephus averre it not onely quite ruines our Opposites Argument but their whole Treatises and cause at once But fiftly I answer that subjects not onely by command of Gods Prophets but of God himself and by his speciall approbation have taken up Arms against their Idolatrous Princes to ruine them and their Posterities A truth so apparent in Scripture that I wonder our purblinde Doctors discern it not For did not God himself notwithstanding his frequent conditionall Promises to establish the Kingdom of Israel on David Solomon and their Posterity for Solomons grosse Idolatry occasioned by his Wives tell Solomon in expresse terms VVherefore for as much as this is done of thee and thou hast not kept my Covenant and my Statutes which I have commanded thee I will surely REND THE KINGDOM FROM THEE and will give it to thy servant Notwithstanding in thy dayes I will not do it for David thy fathers sake but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son Did not the Prophet Abijah in pursuance hereof rending Ierohoams garment into twelve pieces tell him Thus saith the Lord the God of Israel behold I will rend the Kingdom out of the hand of Solomon and will give ten tribes to thee And I will take the Kingdom out of his sons hand and will give it unto thee even ten Tribes and I will take thee and thou shalt reign according to all that thy soul desireth and shalt be King over Israel and I will for this afflict the Seed of David y Yea
the estate that it is now the title of Empire being little more then that of the Duke of Venice the soveraingty writes the Historian in the Margin remaining in the States of the Empire All that is objected against the premises is that passage of Tertullian much insisted on Colimus ergo Imperatorē sic quomodo nobis licet ipsi expedit ut hominem à DEO SECUNDUM quicquid est à Deo consecutum SOLO DEO MINOREM Hoc et ipse volet Sic enim OMNIBUS MAJOR EST DUM SOLO VERO DEO MINOR EST. Sic ipsis Diis major est dum ipsi in poteste sunt ejus c. To which I answer that these words onely prove the Emperour in the Roman State to be the highest Officer and Magistrate under God of any one particular person not that he was the Soveraigne highest power above the Senate and people collectively considered And the occasion of these words will discover the Authors intention to be no other which was this The Christians in that age were persecuted and put to death by Scapula President of Carthage to whom Tertullian writes this Booke because they refused to adore the Emperour for a God to sweare by his Genius and to observe his solemnities and triumphs in an Ethnicall manner as is evident by the words preceding this passage Sic circa Majestatem Imperatoris infamamur c. and by sundry notable passages in his Apologeticus In answer to which accusation Tertullian reasons in the Christians behalfe that though they adored not the Emperour as a God yet they reverenced him as a man next under God as one onely lesse then God as one greater then all others whiles lesse onely then the true God and greater then the Idol Gods themselves who were in the Emperours power c. Here was no other thing in question but whether the Emperour were to be adored as God not whether he or the Roman Senate and people were the greatest highest Soveraigne power And the answer being that he was but a man next under God above any other particular officer in the Roman State is no proofe at all that he was paramount the whole Senate and people collectively considered or of greater Soveraigne power then they which the premises clearely disprove Adde that this Father in his Apologie thus censures the Pagan Romans for their grosse flattery of their Emperours whom they feared more then their Gods appliable to our present times Siquidem majore formidine callidiore timiditate Caesarem observatis quam ipsum de Olympo Jovem c. adeo in isto irreligiosi erga dees vestros deprehendimini cum plus timoris humano Domino dicatis citius denique apud vos per omnes Deos quam per unum genium Caesaris pejeratur Then he addes Interest hominis Deo cedere satis habeat appellari Imperator grande hoc nomen est quod a Deo tradetur negat illum imperatorem qui deum dicit nisi homo sit non est imperator Hominem se esse etiam triumphans in illo sublimissimo curru admonetur Suggeritur enim ci a tergo Respice post te hominem memento te Etiam hoc magis gaudet tanta se gloria coruscare ut illi admonitio conditionis suae sit necessaria Major est qui revocatur ne se deum existimet Augustus imperii formator ne Dominum quidem dici se volebat et hoc enim Dei est cognomen Dicam plane Imperatorem Dominum sed more communi sed quando non cogor ut Dominum Dei vice dicam Concluding thus Nullum bonum sub exceptione personarum administramus c. lidem sumus Imperatoribus qui vicinis nostris Male enim velle male facere male dicere male cogitare de quoquam ex aequo vetamur Quodcunque non licet in Imperatorem id nec in quenquam quod in neminem eo forsitan magis nec in ipsum qui per deum tantus est c. From which it is evident that the Christians did not deifie nor flatter their Emperours more then was meet and deemed they might not resist them onely in such cases where they might resist no others and so by consequence lawfully resist them where it was lawfull for them to resist other private men who did injuriously assault them If then the Roman Emperors were not the highest Soveraigne power in the Roman State when Paul writ this Epistle but the Roman Senate and State as I have cleared and if the Parliament not the King be the supremest Soveraigne power in our Realme as I have abundantly manifested then this objected Text so much insisted on by our opposites could no wayes extend to the Roman Senate State or our English Parliament who are the very higher powers themselves and proves most fatall and destructive to their cause of any other even by their owne Argument which I shall thus doubly discharge upon them First that power which is the highest and most soveraigne Authority in any State or kingdome by the Apostles and our Antagonists owne doctrine even in point of conscience neither may nor ought in what case soever say our opposites to be forcibly resisted either in their persons ordinances commands instruments offices or Armed Souldiers by any inferiour powers persons or subjects whatsoever especially when their proceedings are just and legall under paine of temporall and eternall condemnation But the Senate among the Romans not the Emperour and the Parliament in England not the King really were and are the higher Powers and most soveraigne Authority Therefore by the Apostles own Doctrine even in point of conscience they neither may nor ought to be disobeyed or forcibly resisted in any case whatsoever either in their Persons Ordinances Commands Instruments Officers or Armed Souldiers by the King himselfe his Counsellors Armies Cavaliers or by any inferiour powers persons or Subjects whatsoever especially when their proceedings are just and legall as hitherto they have beene under paine of temporall and eternall condemnation I hope the Doctor and his Camerads will now beshrew themselves that ever they medled with this Text and made such a halter to strangle their owne treacherous cause and those who have taken up armes in its defence Secondly that Power which is simply highest and supreame in any State may lawfully with good conscience take up Armes to resist or suppresse any other power that shall take up armes to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties the Republike or the just Rights and Priviledges of the Subject or of this higher power This is our opposites owne argumentation Therefore the Parliament being in verity the highest supreame Power in our State may lawfully with good conscience take up Armes to resist or suppresse his Majesties Malignant Popish Forces or any other power which already hath or hereafter shall be raised to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties the Republike just Rights and Priviledges of Parliament
to the assertion of the Apostle very ill applied saying The spirituall man is iudged of no man 1 Corinth 2. 15. Not meant of Bishops or Clergie-men but Saints alone endued with Gods Spirit not of judging in courts of iustice but of discerning spirituall things and their own spirituall Estates as the Context resolves Thus and much more this Prelate who notwithstanding this text of the Romanes pleads an exemption of all Bishops and Priests from the kings secular power by Divine Authority and arrogates to Priest and Prelates a iudiciary lawfull power over Kings themselves to excommunicate and censure them for their offences And to descend to later times even since the the Reformation of Religion here Iohn Bridges Dean of Sarum and Bishop of Oxfort even in his Book intituled The supremacy of Christian Princes over all persons thorowout their Dominions in all causes so well Ecclesiasticall as spirituall printed at London 1573. p. 1095. writes thus But who denies this M. Saunders that a godly Bishop may upon great and urgent occasion if it shall be necessary to edifie Gods Church and there be no other remedy flee to this last censure of Excommunication AGAINST A WICKED KING Making it a thing not questionable by our Prelates and Clergie that they may in such a case lawfully excommunicate the King himself And Doctor Bilson Bishop of Winchester in his True difference between Christian subiection and unchristian Rebellion dedicated to Queen Elizabeth her self printed at Oxford 1595. Part. 3. Page 369. to 378. grants That Emperours Kings and Princes may in some cases be Excommunicated and kept from the Lords Table by their Bishops and grants That with Hereticks and Apostates be THEY PRINCES or private men no Christian Pastor nor people may Communicate Neither finde I any Bishop or Court Doctor of the contrary opinion but all of them readily subscribe hereto If then not onely the ill Counsellors and Instruments of Kings but Kings and Emperours themselves may thus not onely be lawfully iustly resisted but actually smitten and excommunicated by their Bishops and Clergy with the spirituall sword for their notorious crimes and wickednesses notwithstanding this inhibition which Valentinian the Emperour confessed and therefore desired that such a Bishop should be chosen and elected in Millain after Auxentius as he himself might really and cordially submit to him and his reprehensions since he must sometimes needs erre as a man as to the medicine of souls as he did to Ambrose when he was elected Bishop there why they may not likewise be resisted by their Laity in the precedent cases with the temporall sword and subjected unto the censures of the whole Kingdoms and Parliaments transcends my shallow apprehension to conceive there being as great if not greater or the very self-same reason for the lawfulnesse of the one as of the other And till our Opposites shall produce a substantiall difference between these cases or disclaim this their practice and doctrine of the lawfulnesse of excommunicating Kings and Emperours they must give me and others liberty to conceive they have quite lost and yeelded up the cause they now contend for notwithstanding this chief Text of Romaves 13. the ground of all their strength at first but now of their ruine The tenth Objection is this that of 1 Pet. 2 13 14 15 16. Submit your selves to every ORDINANCE OF MAN for the Lords sake whether it be to The King AS SVPREAME or unto Governours as unto them that are sent by him to wit by God not the King as the distribution manifests and Rom. 13. 1 2 3 4. For the punishment of evill doers and for the praise of them that doe well c. Feare God Honour the King wee must submit to Kings and honour Kings who are the supream Governours therefore we may in no case forcibly resist them or their Officers though they degenerate into Tyrants To which I answer that this is a meerin consequent since the submission here injoyned is but to such Kings who are punishers of evill doers and praisers of those that do well which the Apostle makes the Ground and motive to submission therefore this text extends not to Tyrants and oppressours who doe quite contrary We must submit to Kings when they rule well and justly is all the Apostle here affirms Ergo wee must submit to and not resist them in any their violent courses to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties is meet non-sence both in Law Divinity and common Reason If any reply as they doe that the Apostle vers 18 19 20. Bids servants 〈◊〉 subject to their Masters with all feare not onely to the good and gentle but also to the froward For this is thank-worthy if a man for conscience towards God endure griefe suffering wrongfully c. Ergo this is meant of evill Magistrates and Kings as well as good I answer 1. That the Apostles speaks it onely of evill Masters not Kings of servants not subjects there being a great difference between servants Apprentices Villaines and free borne subiects as all men know the one being under the arbitrary rule and government of their Master the other onely under the just setled legall Government of their Princes according to the Lawes of the Realme Secondly this is meant onely of private personall iniuries and undue corrections of Masters given to servants without iust cause as vers 20. For what glory is it if when yee be BVFFETED FOR your faults c. intimates not of publike iniuries and oppressions of Magistrates which indanger the whole Church and State A Christian servant or subiect must patiently endure private undue corrections of a froward Master or King Ergo whole Kingdomes and Parliaments must patiently without resistance suffer their kings and evill Instruments to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties Realms the proper deduction heen is but a ridiculous conclusion Secondly This Text enjoynes no more subjection to kings then to any other Magistrates as the words Submit your selves TO EVERY ORDINANCE of Man Or unto Governors c. prove past all contradiction And vers 6. which bids us Honour the King bids us first in direct tearmes HONOVR ALL MEN to wit All Magistrates at least if not all men in generall as such There is then no speciall Prerogative of irresistability given to kings by this Text in injurious violent courses more then there is to any other Magistrate or person whatsoever God giving no man any Authority to injure others without resistance especially if they assault their persons or invade their Estates to ruine them Since then inferiour Officers and other menmay be forcâ—bly resisted when they actually attempt by force to ruine Religion Lawes Liberties the republike as I haue proved and our Antagonists must grant by the self-same reason kings may be resisted too notwithstanding any thing in this Text which attributes no more irresistability or authority to Kings then unto other Magistrates Thirdly Kings are here expresly called AN ORDINANCE OF
MAN not God as I have formerly proved them to be If so I then appeal to the consciences of our fiercest Antagonists whether they do beleeve in their consciences or date take their Oathes upon it That ever any people or Nation in the world or our Ancestors at first did appoint any Kings or Governours over them to subvert Religion Laws Liberties or intend to give them such an unlimited uncontroulable Soveraignty over them as not to provide for their own safety or not to take up Arms against them for the necessary defence of their Laws Liberties Religion Persons States under pain of high Treason or eternall damnation in case they should degenerate into Tyrants and undertake any such wicked destructive designe If not as none can without madnesse and impudence averre the contrary it being against all common sence and reason that any man or Nation should so absolutely irresistably inslave themselves and their Posterities to the very lusts and exorbitancies of Tyrants and such a thing as no man no Nation in their right sences were they at this day to erect a most absolute Monarchie would condescend to then clearly the Apostle here confirming onely the Ordinances of men and giving no Kings nor Rulers any other or greater power then men had formerly granted them for that had been to alter not approve their humane Ordinances I shall infallibly thence inferre That whole States and Subjects may with safe conscience resist the unjust violence of their Kings in the foresaid cases because they never gave them any authority irresistably to act them nor yet devested themselves much lesse their posterity whom they could not eternally inslave of the right the power of resisting them in such cases whom they might justly resist before whiles they were private men and as to which illegall proceedings they continue private persons still since they have no legall power given them by the people to authorize any such exorbitances Fourthly The subjection here enjoyned is not passive but active witnesse ver 15. For so is the will of God that by WELL DOING to wit by your actuall cheerfull submission to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake c. you put to silence the ignorance of foolish men as free and not using your liberty c. If then this Text be meant of active not passive obedience then it can be intended onely of lawfull Kings of Magistrates in their just commands whom we must actually obey not of Tyrants and Oppressours in their unjust wicked proceedings whom we are bound in such cases actually to disobey as our Antagonists grant and I have largely evidenced elsewhere Wherefore it directly commands resistance not subjection in such cases since actuall disobedience to unjust commands is actuall resisting of them And that these Texts prescribing resistance tacitely should apparantly prohibit it under pain of Treason Rebellion Damnation is a Paradox to me Fifthly This Text doth no way prove that false conceit of most who hence conclude That all Kings are the Supream Powers and above their Parliaments and whole Kingdoms even by Divine institution There is no such thing nor shadow of it in the Text. For first This Text calls Kings not a Divine but Humane Ordinance If then Kings be the Supreamest Power and above their Parliaments Kingdoms it is not by any Divine Right but by Humane Ordination onely as the Text resolves Secondly This Text prescribes not any Divine Law to all or any particular States nor gives any other Divine or Civill Authority to Kings and Magistrates in any State then what they had before for if it should give Kings greater Authority and Prerogatives then their people at first allotted them it should alter and invade the settled Government of all States contrary to the Apostles scope which was to leave them as they were or should be settled by the peoples joynt consent It doth not say That all Kings in all Kingdoms are or ought to be Supreame or let them be so henceforth no such inference appears therein It speaks not what Kings ought to be in point of Power but onely takes them as they are according to that of Rom. 13. 2. The Powers that ARE c. to wit that are even now every where in being not which ought to be or shall be whence he saith Submit to the King as supreame that is where by the Ordinance of man the King is made supreame not where Kings are not the supreamest Power as they were not among the ancient Lacedemonians Indians Carthaginians Gothes Aragonians and in most other Kingdoms as I have elsewhere proved To argue therefore We must submit to Kings where the people have made them supreame Ergo All Kings every where are and ought to be supreame Jure divino as our Antagonists hence inferre is a grosse absurdity Thirdly This Text doth not say That the King is the supreame soveraigne Power as most mistake but supreame Governour as the next words or Governours c. expond it and the very Oath of Supremacie 1. Eliz. Cap. 1. which gives our Kings this Title Supreame Governour within these his Realms Now Kings may be properly called Supreame Magistrates or Governours in their Realms in respect of the actuall administration of government and justice all Magistrates deriving their Commissions immediately from them and doing justice for and under them and yet not be the Soveraign Power as the Romane Emperours the Kings of Sparta Arragon and others the German Emperours the Dukes of Venice in that State and the Prince of Orange in the Nether-lands were and are the Supreame Magistrates Governours but not the Supreame Severaigne Powers their whole States Senates Parliaments being the Supreamest Powers and above them which being Courts of State of Justice and a compound body of many members not alwayes constantly sitting may properly be stiled The Supreame Courts and Powers but not the Supreame Magistrate or Governour As the Pope holds himself the Supreame Head and Governour of the Militant Church and the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury stiles himself the Primate and Metropolitane of all England and so other Prelates in their Provinces yet they are not the Soveraigne Ecclesiasticall Power for the King at least Generall Councells or Nationall Synods which are not properly tearmed Governours but Power are Paramount them and may lawfully censure or depose them as I have elsewhere manifested To argue therefore that Kings are the highest Soveraign Power because they are the highest particular Governours and Magistrates in their Realms as our Antagonists do is a meer Fallacie and Inconsequent since I have proved our own and most other Kings not to be the highest Powers though they be the Supreamest Governours Fourthly This Text speaks not at all of the Romane Emperour neither is it meant of him as Doctour Fernâ— with others mistake who is never in Scripture stiled a King being a Title extreamly odious to the Romanes and for ever banished their State with
an Oath of execration by an ancient Law in memory whereof they instituted a speciall annuall Feast on the 23. of February called Regifugium the hatred of which Title continued such that Tully and Augustine write Regem Romae posthac nec Dii nec Homines esse patiantur And Caesar himself being saluted King by the multitude perceiving it was very distastfull to the States answered CAESAREM SE NON REGEM ESSE which Title of Caesar not King the Scripture ever useth to expresse the Emperour by witnesse Matth. 22. 17 21. Mark 12. 14 16 17. Luke 2. 1. chap. 20. 22 24 25. chap. 23. 2. John 19. 12 15. Acts 11. 28. chap. 17. 7. chap. 25. 8 10 11 12 21. chap. 26. 32. chap. 27. 24. chap. 28. 19. Phil. 4. 22. Which Texts do clearly manifest that no Title was ever used by the Apostles Evangelists Jewes to expresse the Emperour by but that of Caesar not this of King Therefore Peters Text speaking onely of the King not Caesar cannot be intended of the Romane Emperour as ignorant Doctors blindly fancie Fifthly This Epistle of Peter the Apostle of the Jews was written onely to the dispersed Jews thorowout Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bythinia 1 Pet. 1. 1. over whom Herod at that time reigned as King by the Romane Senates and Emperours appointment who had then conquered the Jews and made them a tributarie Province as is evident by Matth. 27. 17 21. Mark 12. 14 16 17. Luke 20. 22 24 25. chap. 23. 2. Acts 17. 7. chap. 25. 8 10 11 12 21. chap. 27. 24. chap. 12. 1. to 24. compared together and by Josephus the Century writers Baronius Sigonius and others The King then here mentioned to be supreame was Herod or King Agrippa or some other immediate King of the Jews who was their supreame Governour not absolutely but under the Romane Senate and Emperours and made so by their appointment whence called in the Text an Ordinance of man not God Now this King of the Jews as is evident by Pauls Appeal to Caesar from Festus and King Agrippa as to the Soveraign Tribunall Acts 25. and 26. by Josephus Philo Judaeus de legatione ad Caium and the consent of all Historians was not the absolute Soveraigne Power but subordinate to the Romane Emperour and Senate who both created and bad power to controll remove and censure him for his misdemeanours yet Peter calls him here Supreame because the Highest Governour under them as we stile our Kings Supreame Governours under Christ Therefore having a Superiour Governour and Power over him to which he was accountable and subordinate Supreame in the Text cannot be meant of a King absolutely Supreame having no Power Superiour to him but God but onely relatively Supreame in respect of under-Governours there actually residing whose Supremacie being forcibly gained onely by conquest not free consent and the ancient native Kings of the Jews being inferiour to their whole Senates and Congregations and to do all by their advice as Josephus Antiq. Jud. lib. 4. cap. 8. 2. Sam. 18. 3 4. Jer. 38. 45. 1. Chron. 13. 1. to 6. attest will no way advantage our Opposites nor advance the Prerogative of Kings since it extends onely to the King of the Jews that then was who was not simply Supream but a Subject Prince subordinate to the Romane State and Empire and one appointed by a Conquerour not freely chosen and assented to by the people So as all the Argument which can hence be extracted for the absolute Soveraigntie and irresistibility of Kings over their whole Kingdomes and Parliaments is but this The King of the Jews was in Peters time the Supreame Magistrate over that Nation by the Romane Senates and Emperours appointment to whom yet he was subordinate and accountable the Romanes having conquered the Jewes by force and imposing this government upon them without their consents Therefore the Kings of England and all other Kings are absolute Soveraigne Monarches Superiour to their whole Parliaments and Kingdomes collectively considered and may not in point of conscience be forcibly resisted by them though they endeavour to subvert Religion Laws Liberties How little coherence there is in this Argument the silliest childe may at first discern From these Scriptures I descend to Reasons deduced from them against resistance which I shall contract into three Arguments The first is this Kings are the Fathers Heads Lords Shepherds of the Common-wealth Ergo They ought not to be resisted in any their exorbitant proceedings it being unlawfull unseemly for a Son to resist his Father the Members the Head the Vassals their Lord the Flock their Shepherd To this I answer First They are Fathers Shepherds Lords Heads onely in an improper allegoricall not genuine sence therefore nothing can thence be properly inferred They are and ought to be such in respect of their loving and carefull affection towards their Subjects not in regard of their Soveraigne Power over them Therefore when their Tyrannie makes them not such in regard of care and affection to their people their people cease to be such in regard of filiall naturall and sheep-like submission When these Shepberds turn Wolves these Fathers Step-fathers the Subjects as to this cease to be their Sheep their Children in point of Obedience and Submission Secondly If we consider the Common-weal and Kingdom collectively Kings are rather their Kingdoms children then Parents because created by them their publike servants ministers for whose benefit they are imployed and receive wages not their Soveraigne Lords their subordinate Heads to be directed and advised by them not Tyrannically to over-rule them at their pleasure Therefore Paramount and able in such cases to resist them Thirdly Parishioners may no doubt lawfully resist the false Doctrines and open assaults of their Ministers though they be their Spirituall Shepherds Citizens the violent oppressions of their Maiors though they be their Politique Heads Servants the unjust assaults of their Masters though their lawfull Lords who may not misuse their very Villaines by Law And if Parents will violently assault their naturall children Husbands their Wives Masters their Servants to murther them without cause they may by Law resist repulse them with open force Fourthly A Son who is a Judge may lawfully resist imprison condemne his naturall Father A Servant his Lord A Parishioner his Pastour a Citizen his Major a meer Gentleman the greatest Peer or Lord as experience proves because they do it in another capacity as Judges and Ministers of publike Justice to which all are subject The Parliament then in this sence as they are the representative Body of the Realm not private Subjects and their Armies by their authority may as they are the highest Soveraign Power and Judicature resist the King and his Forces though he be their Father Head Shepherd Lord as they are private men Fifthly This is but the common
exploded Argument of the Popish Clergy To prove themselves superiour to Kings and exempt from all secular Jurisdiction because they are spirituall Fathers Pastors Heads to Kings who ought to obey not judge and censure them as Archbish Stratford and others argue But this plea is no ways available to exempt Clergy men from secular Jurisdiction from actuall resistance of parties assaulted nor yet from imprisonment censures and capitall executions by Kings and Civill Magistrates in case of capitall Crimes Therefore by like reason it can not exempt Kings from the resistance censures of their Parliaments Kingdoms in case of tyrannicall invasions We deride this Argument in Papists as absurd as in sufficient to prove the exemption of Clergy men I wonder therefore why it is now urged to as little purpose against resistance of Tyrants and oppressing Kings and Magistrates The second reason is this The Invasions and oppressions of evill Kings and Tyrants are afflictions and punishments inflicted on us by God Therefore we ought patiently to submit unto them and not forcibly to resist them I answer First The invasions of Forraign Enemies are just Judgements and punishments sent upon men by God as were the invasions of the Danes Saxons and Normans in England heretofore of the Spaniards since Ergo we ought not to resist or fight against them The present rebellion of the Papists in Ireland is a just punishment of God upon this Kingdom and the Protestant party there Ergo Neither we nor they ought in conscience to resist or take Arms against them Every sicknesse that threatens or invades our bodies is commonly an affliction and punishment sent by God Ergo We must not endeavour to prevent or remove it by Physick but patiently lye under it without seeking remedy Injuries done us in our persons estates names by wicked men who assault wound rob defame us are from God and punishments for our sins Ergo We may not resist them Yea Subjects Rebellions Treasons and Insurrections against their Princes many times are punishments inflicted on them by God displeased with them as the Statute of 1 Ed. 6. c. 12. resolves and the Scripture too Ergo Kings ought not to resist or suppresse them by force of Arms If all these Consequences be absurd and idle as every man will grant the objection must be so likewise I read That in the persecution of the Hunnes their King Attila being demanded of by a religious Bishop of a certain Citie who he was when he had answered I am Attila the scourge of God The Bishop reverencing the divine Majesty in him answered Thou art welcome ô Minister of God and ingeminating this saying Blessed be he that cometh in the Name of the Lord Opened the Church door and let in the persecutor by whom he obtained the Crown of Martyrdom not daring to exclude the scourge of the Lord knowing that the beloved sonne is scourged and that the power of the scourge it self is not from any but God Will it hence follow That all Christians are bound in conscience to do the like and not to resist the barbarous Turks if they should invade them no more then this Bishop did the bloudy Pagan Hunnes because they are Gods wrath I trow not One Swallow makes no Summer nor this example a generall president to binde all men The third reason is this Saints forcible resistance of Tyrants begets civill warres great disorders and many mischiefs in the State Ergo It is unlawfull and inconvenient I answer First That this doctrine of not resisting Tyrants in any case is farre more pernicious destructive to the Realm then the contrary because it deprives them of all humane means and possibilities of preservation and denies them that speciall remedy which God and nature hath left them for their preservation Laws denyall of Subsidies and such like remedies prescribed by Doctor Ferne being no remoraes or restraints at all to armed Tyrants Wherefore I must tell thee Doctor Theologorum utcunque dissertissimorum sententiae in hac controversia non sunt multo faciendae quia quid sit Lex humana ipsi ignorant as Vasquius controvers Illustr 81. .11 determines Secondly The knowledge of a lawfull power in Subjects to resist Tyrants will be a good means to keep Princes from Tyrannicall courses for fear of strenuous resistance which if once taken away there is no humane bridle left to stay the Inundation of Tyranny in Princes or great Officers and all Weapons Bulwarks Walls Lawes Armes will be meerly uselesse to the Subjects if resistance be denyed them when there is such cause Thirdly Resistance only in cases of publike necessity though accompanied with civill warre serves alwayes to prevent farre greater mischiefs then warre it self can produce it being the only Antidote to prevent publike ruine the readiest means to preserve endangered to regaine or settle lost Liberties Laws Religion as all ages witnesse and to prevent all future Seditions and Oppressions Fourthly Desperate diseases have alwayes desperate remedies Malo nodo malus cuneus When nothing but a defensive warre will preserve us from ruine and vassalage it is better to imbrace it then hazard the losse of all without redemption Ex duobus malis minimum All Kingdoms States in cases of necessity have ever had recourse to this as the lesser evill and why not ours as well as others The last and strongest Objection as some deem it is the sayings if some Fathers backed with the examples of the primitive Christians to which no such satisfactory answer hath hitherto been given as might be The first and grandest Objection against Subjects forcible resistance and defensive warre is that speech of Saint Ambrose Lib. 5. Orat. in Auxentium Coactus repugnare non audeo dolere potero potero flere potero gemere adversus arma milites Gothos Lachrymae meae arma sunt talia sunt munimenta sacerdotum A LITER NEC DEBEO NEC POSSVM RESISTERE This chiefe Authoritie though it makes a great noise in the world if solidly scanned will prove but Brutum fulmen a meer scar-crow and no more For first Ambrose in this place speaks not at all of Subjects resisting their Princes or Christians forcible resisting of the persecuting Romane Emperours but of resisting Valentine and the Arms and Souldiers of the Gothes who at that time over ran Italy and sacked Rome being mortall Enemies to the Romans the Roman Emperours Saint Ambrose and Millain where he was Bishop This is evident by the expresse objected words I can grieve I can weep I can mourn to wit for the wasting of my native Country Italy by the Invading Enemies the Gothes against Armes Souldiers GOTHES marke it my tears are Weapons c. If any sequell can be hence properly deduced it must be that for which the Anabaptists use it from whence our Opposites who tax the Parliaments Forces for Anabaptists when themselves are here more truly such
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