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
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
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
their severall flights from the violence of the Egyptians Saul and Iezabel who sought their lives but likewise by Ioseph Mary and Christ himselfe who fled into Egypt to escape the hands and but chery of King Herod by Christs own direction to his Disciples Matth. 10. 23. But when they persecute you in this City flee yee into another and that Prediction of his Matth. 23. 34. Behold I send unto you Prophets and wise men and Scribes and some of them ye shall kill and crucifie and some of them shall you scourge in your Synagogues and persecute them from City to City which was really fulfilled Acts 8. 3. 4. c. 9. 1 2. c 11. 19. c. 13. 50 51. c. 14. 1 to 24 c. 17. 1. to 16. c. 22. 42. c. 26. 11. 12. c. 9. 24 25 26. 2 Cor. 11. 32. 33. Rev. 12. 6. Of which reade more in Tertullian his booke De Fuga in persecutione Hence then I argue thus That unjust violence of Princes and their Armies which Subjects with a safe conscience may decline and flee from when as they want power meanes or convenience to resist it they may no doubt lawfully resist even with force of Armes when they have sufficient meanes and conveniences to resist and cannot flee or submit thereto without the publicke ruine since the same justice and equity which enables them by flight or stratagem to decline unjust assaults of a superior power or its judgements doth likewise enable them to escape and prevent it with resistance when they cannot doe it by flight or other policie If then they may lawfully with a safe conscience hide flee or use lawfull policies to prevent the open injust violence of their kings and their Officers when not guilty of any capitall crime deserving censures because by the very light of nature and Law of Charity they are obliged to preserve themselves from unjust tyrannie and are no wayes bound to subject themselves to the cruelty the unjust assaults or oppressions of others then by the selfesame reason they may lawfully with force of Armes defend themselves against such violent unjust attempts which they are no way obliged to submit unto when as they cannot conveniently secure themselves and the publicke but by such resistance and should both betray their owne the publicke safety and Religion as the Subjects and Parliament should now do in case they did not resist by force of Armes to the utmost of their power and become worse than Infidels who have even thus oft provided for their owne and the Republickes securitie Fiftly God himselfe the fountaine oft justice the God of Order the preserver of humane society who detests of all tyranny cruelty oppression injustice out of his Philanthropie which brought the Sonne of his bosome from heaven to earth would never certainely in point of policy or conscience prohibit that which is the onely probable meanes and apparent remedy to prevent suppresse disorder tyranny cruelty oppression injustice yea confusion in the world and to preserve good order and humane society a truth so apparent that no rationall man can contradict it Therefore questionesse he never prohibited forcible necessary resistance of the highest powers and their instruments in cases of open unjust violence and hostile invasion made upon their people to ruine them or subvert their established government Laws Liberties Iustice Religion There being no other probable ordinary meanes left to any Kingdome Nation People to preserve their government lives Lawes Liberties Religion and to prevent suppresse or redresse tyrannie cruelty disorder confusion yea utter ruine when their Kings and Governors degenerate into Tyrants invading them with open force but onely defensive Armes prayers and teares alone without military opposition by force of Armes being no more able to defend a person City or Kingdome against Oppressing Princes and their Armies then against theeves Pyrates or common enemies whom they must and ought to resist as well with Armes as Orisons with Speares as well as Teares else they should but tempt the Lord and destroy themselves like those c Iewes and Gothes who would not fight upon the Sabbath and so were slaine by their enemies without resistance yea wilfully suffer the Common-weale to be subverted Religion extirpated Lawes trampled under feete their own posterities to be enslaved ruined without any opposition even in a moment For were it utterly unlawfull and no lesse than Treason or Rebellion in point of conscience for any subjects to take up Defensive Armes to resist the Kings army or forces consisting for the most part of Papists Delinquents deboist Athesticall persons of broken fortunes feared consciences and most irreligious lives I appeale to every mans conscience how soone these unresisted Instruments of cruelty would utterly extirpate our protestant Religion and common faith for which we are enjoyned earnestly to contend and strive Jude 3. Phil. 1. 27. 28. And shall we then yeeld it up and betray it to our adversaries without strife or resistance how sodainely would they ruin our Parliament Lawes Liberties subvert all civill order government erect an arbitrary Lawlesse tyrannicall Regency regulated by no Iawes but will and Iust how soone would they murther imprison execute our Noblest Lords Knights Burgesses best Ministers and Commonwealths-men for their fidelity to God their King and Country how many Noble families would they disinherite how many wives widdowes Virgins would they force and ravish what Cities what Countries would they not totally pillage plunder sack ruine consume with fire and sword how soone would our whole Kingdome become an Acheldama a wildernesse a desolation and the surviving inhabitants either slaves or beasts if not devils incarnate Yea how speedy might any private Officers Captaines Commanders by colour of illegall Commissions and commands from the King or of their Offices and all the notorious rogues and theeves of England under colour of being listed in the Kings Army if the people might not in point of Law or Conscience resist them with Armes who came armed for to act their villanies maliciously rob spoyle plunder murther all the Kings leige people without any remedy or prevention and by this pretext that they are the Kings Souldiers sodainely seise and gaine all the armes treasure forts ammunition power of the Realme into their possessions in a moment and having thus strengthned themselves and slaine the Kings faithfull subjects usurpe the crown it selfe if they be ambitious as many private Captaines and Commanders have anciently slaine divers Roman and Grecian Emperours yea sundry Spanish Gothish and Moorish Kings in Spain by such practises and aspired to their Crowns of which there are sundry such like presidents in most other Realmes to prevent redres which severall destructive mischiefes to People Kingdome Kings themselves God himselfe hath left us no other certaine proper sufficient remedy but a forcible resistance which all Kingdomes Nations throughout the world haue constantly used in such cases as I shall manifest more largely in the Appendix
force of Armes resist him and his unnaturall instruments there being no other meanes else of safety left them they should sinfully and wilfully betray their trust and be so farre from keeping a good Christian Conscience in not resisting by force that they should highly sinne against Conscience against their trust and duty against their naturall Country yea and their very Allegiance to the king himselfe by encouraging him in and consenting unto these proceedings which would make him not to be a king but Tyrant and destroy him as a king in the spoyle and ruine of his Kingdome thereby endangered to be consumed and tempt God himself as Pope Nicholas and Gratian resolve in these words If there be no necessity we ought at all times to abstaine from warres but if inevitable necessity urge us we ought not to abstaine from warres and warlike preparations for the defence of our selves of our Country and paternall Lawes no not in Lent least man should seeme to tempt God if when he hath meanes he provide not for his owne and others safety and prevents not the Detriments of holy religion Fourthly those injuries which Allies and other neighbour States or Princes may with good Conscience repulse with Armes from Subjects wrongfully oppressed invaded tyrannically by their Soveraignes or their wicked Instruments at or without the Subjects intreaty when they are unable to relieve themselves no doubt the Subjects themselves if able may with better reason and as good Conscience resist and repell because every man is nearer and more oblieged to defend and preserve himselfe and those of his owne Nation Religion blood then strangers are and may with lesse publick danger inconvenience and more speede effect it then Forraigners but Allies and Forraigne Neighbour States and Princes as Gratian oâ—t of the 5. Councell of Carthage Augustine Ambrose Hierom Anastatius Calistus and other Albericus Gentilis John Bodin a Huga Grotius and Generally all â—â—nonists Casuists Schoâ—lemen accord may in many cases with good conscience by forâ— of Arms repulse from Subjects wrongfully oppressed invaded and tyrannically abused the injuries offered them by their Soveraignes and that either at and in some cases without the Subjects intreaty Which they prove by Moses his slaying the AEgyptian that oppressed the Hebrew Exod. 2. 11. to 15. by Joshua his ayding of the Gibeonites against the five Kings that made war against them Josh 10. by the example of Jehoshaphat 1 Kin. 22. 2 Kings 3. Of the chiefe Captaines securing Paul with a gard of Souldiers against the Iews who had vowed his death Acts 23. by Abrahams rescuing Lot Gen. 14. by sundry ancieâ—t and late Examples in story Therfore Subjects themselves no doubt if able may with good reason and conscience lawfully resist and repell their Princes invading Forces though accompanied assisted with his personall presence Fifthly It is yeelded by all Divines Lawyers Canonists Schoolemen as Gratian Banâ—es Seto Lessius Vasquius Covaruviâ—s Aquinas Sylvester Bartolus Baldus Navarre Albericus Gentilis Grotius and others that private men by the Law of God and nature may in defence of their lives chastities principall members and estates lawfully resist all those who forcibly assault them to deprive them thereof yea and slay them to unlesse they be publicke persons of eminencie by whose slaughter the Commonweale should sustaine much prejudice whose lives in such cases must not be willingly hazzarded though their violence be resisted which is cleerely prooved by Iudges 11. 8. 15. to 18. 1 Sam. 17. 41. to 53. Deut. 22. 26. 27. since therefore all these are apparently indangered by an invasive warre and Army more then by any private assaults and no ayde no assistance or protection against the losse of life chastitie estate and other violences injuries which accompany wars can be expected from the Lawes or Prince himself the fountaine of this injustice or legall punishments inflicted on the malefactors whose armed power being above the reach of common justice and injuries countenanced abetted authorised by the Soveraine who should avenge and punish them every subject in particular and the whole state in Parliament assembled in generall may and ought in point of conscience joyntly and severally to defend themselves their neighbours brethren but especially their native Countrey Kingdome whose generall safety is to be preferred before the lives of any particular persons how great or considerable soever which may be casually hazarded by their owne wilfulnesse though not purposely endangered or cut off in the defensive incounter by those who make resistance And if according to Cajetan and other Schoolemen Innocents which onely casually hinder ones flight from a mortall enemie may be lawfully with good conscience slaine by the party pursued in case where he cannot else possibly escape the losse of his owne life because every mans owne life is dearer to him then anothers which he here takes away onely to preserve his owne life without any malicious murtherous intent though others doubt of this case or if innocent persons set perforce in the front of unjust assailants as by the Cavalleires at Brainford and elsewhere to prevent defence and wrong others with more securitie and lesse resistance may casually be slain though not intentionally by the defensive party as I thinke they may for prevention of greater danger and the publicke safety then certainely those of publicke place and Note who wilfully and unnaturally set themselves to ruine their Country Liberty Religion Innocent brethren who onely act the defensive part and voluntarily intrude themselves into danger may questionlesse with safe conscience be resisted repulsed in which if they casually chance to lose their lives without any malice or ill intention in the defendants it being onely through their owne default such a casuall accident when it happens or the remote possibility of it in the combate before it begins cannot make the resistance either unjust or unlawfull in point of conscience for then such a possibility of danger to a publike person should make all resistance unlawfull deprive the Republicke wholly of this onely remedy against tyrannicall violence and expose the whole common-weale to ruine whose weale and safety is to be preferred before the life or safety of any one member of it whatsoever Having thus at large evinced the lawfulnesse of Subjects necessary forcible resistance defensive wars against the unjust offensive Forces of their Soveraignes I shall in the next place answere the principall arguments made against it some whereof for ought I finde are yet unanswered These Objections are of foure sorts out of the Old Testament the New from reason from the example of the primitive Christians backed with the words of some Fathers I shall propound and answere them in order The first out of the Old Testament is that of Numb 16. Korah Dathan and Abiram for their insurrection against that very divine Authority which God himselfe
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
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
no private persons will abuse to iustifie any disloyalty sedition Treason Rebellion or taking up of Arms against their lawfull Princes though never so evill without the publike consent and authority of the representative bodies or major part of their severall Realms by assed with no sinister nor private respects but ayming onely at Gods glory and the publike weale security peace of Church and State Thus much in answer to the principall Objections out of the Old Testament The ninth and most materiall Objection on which our Opposites principally relie is that noted Text in the new Testament Rom. 13. 1 2. Let every soul be subject unto the higher Powers for there is no Power but of God the Powers that be are Ordained of God Whosoever therefore resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation From whence Dr. Fern concludes 1. That the King is the Supreme or Highest Power here intended 2. That all persons under the Highest Power are expressely forbidden to resist 3. That in those dayes there was astanding and continuall great Senate which not long before had the Supreme Power in the Roman State and might challenge more by the fundamentalls of that State then our Great Councell will or can But now the Emperour being supreme as S. Peter calls him or the Higher Power as S. Paul here there is no power of resistance left to any that are under him by the Apostle 4 Was there ever more cause of resistance then in those dayes Were not the Kings then not onely conceived to be inclined so and so but even actually to be enemies of Religion had overthrown Laws and Liberties And therefore if any should from the Apostles reasons that he gives against resistance in the 3 4 5 Verses for Rulers are not a terror to good works but evill and he is the Minister of God to thee for good replie That Rulers so long as they are not a terror to the good but ministers for our good are not to be resisted the consideration of those times leaves no place for such exception because the Powers then which the Apostle forbids to resist were nothing so but subverters of that which was good and just The Emperors did then indeed rule absâ—lâ—tely â—d arburarily which should have according to the Principles of those dayes beene astroâ—ger motive to resist But how did they make themselves of Subjects such absolute Monarchs was it not by force and change of the Government and was not the right of the People and Senate according to the Principles of these dayes good against them with as much or more reason then the right of the people of this Land is against the Succession of this Crown desâ—nding by three Conquests 5. The prohibition doth not onely concern Christians but all the people under those Emperors and not onely Religion was persecuted but Liberties also lost the people and Senate were then enslaved by Edicts and Laws then inforced on them by Nero and other Roman Emperours yet notwithstanding the Apostle prohibits them to resist By all which conscience will clearly see it can have no warrant in Scripture for resistance to wit of the King or his invading Forces by way of necessary defence So the Doctors and other Objectors hence conclude To give a satisfactory Answer to this grand Objection I shall in the first place inquire Whether there be any thing in this Text prohibiting subjects to resist with Force the armed unjust violence of their Princes persons or instruments especially when they are bent to overthrow Religion Laws Liberties the Republike and turn professed Tyrants And under correction I conceive there is not the least syllable or shadow in this Text for any such inhibition as is pretended Not to insist upon the words higher Powers odained of God c. which extend not unto Tyrannie and illegall exorbitant oppressions of which hereafter I shall deducemy first Demonstrations to prove this negative Assertion from the occasion inducing the Apostle to insert these objected Verses into this Epistle Dr Willet recites 7. Reasons of it all fortifying my assertion I shall mention onely the three most probable most received of them and apply them as I go First the Roman Magistrates being then infidels the new converted Christians among them either did or might take themselves to be wholly exempted from any subjection or obedience to them reputing it a great incongruity that Christians should owe any subjection to Pagans To refute which error the Apostle informs them that though the Magistrates themselves were Ethnicks yet their Authority and Power was from God himselfe therefore their profession of Christianitie did rather oblige them to then exempt them from subjection Thus Haymo Soto Calvin Guather Marlorat Willet Pareus with others on this Text. Turn this Reason then into an Argument and it will be but this Non sequitur Christianity exempts not subjects from due obedience to iust Pagan Magistrates Ergo Tyrants may not be resisted neither ought the Parliament and their Forces to resist the King Cavallcers unjust assaults as the case is formerly stated Pretty Logick and Divinity 2. The Gaulonites as Iosephus records with other lews being Abrahams seed held it unlawfull for them to yeeld any subjection or tribute to the Roman Emperors or other Heathen Princes reigning over them whereupon they demanded this question of Christ himself It is lawfull to pay tribute to Caesar Matth. 12. which error perehance spread it self into the Christian Church by reason of Evangelicall Libertie grounded on Ioh. 8. If the Son shall make you free then are ye free indeed Mat. 17. Then are the Children free and Ro. 6. We are not under the Law but under Grace â—o refell this mistake the Apostle inserted these passages into this Epistle Thus Soto Calvin Peter Martyr Willet and others Whence nothing but this can be properly concluded Neither the Prerogâ—tive of the â—ews not Liberty of Christians exempts them from due subjection to lâ—wfull hea he â— Magistrates because they are Gods Ordinance Ergo No Subjects can with safe conscience defend themselves in any case against the unjust invasions of Tytannicall Princes or their Armies A palpable Inconsequent Thirdly the Apostle having formerly tâ—ught that Christians might not avenge themselves lest some might have inserred thereupon as many Anabaptists have done that it was not lawfull for Christians to use the Magistrates defence against wrongs nor for the Magistrate himself to take vengeance of evill doers To prevent this the Apostle argues That the Magistrates are Gods Ministers appointed by him to punish Malefactors and take vengeance on them So Gualther Willet and others To conclude from this ground Oppressed Subjects may seek redresse of their grievances from the Magistrates who may lawfully punish Malefactors Ergo they may not resist with force Tyrannicall bloody Magistrates or their wicked Instruments when they actually make war upon them to ruine spoyl
enslave them is but a ridiculous Non sequitur There is nothing therefore in the occasions of the Apostles words which gives the least colour to disprove the lawfulnesse of such resistance or of the Parliaments just defensive war Secondly this is manifest by the whole Scope of this Text which in summe is onely this That Christians ought in conscience to l be subject to all lawfull higher Powers so farre forth as they are Gods Ordinance Gods Ministers for their good to the praise of the good and punishment of evill doers and notto resist them in the execution of their just Authority Or Christianity exempts not Christians from obedience unto faithfull Civill Magistrates to inferre from thence Ergo it is unlawfull for Christians in point of conscience to resist their Magistrates when they warre upon them to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties slay plunder them is but a meer non-sence deduction Thirdly this appeares most perspicuously from the motives to obedience and reasons against resistance of Magistrates specified by the Apostle in the text it selfe First the higher Powers must be submitted to and not resisted because they are ordained of God and are Gods Ordinance vers 1. 2. But they are ordained of God and his Ordinance so far forth only as they govern according to his Word and preserve protect Religion Lawes Liberties the persons and estates of their people They are not Gods Ordinance but the Devils when they doe quite contrary walking about like roaring Lions seeking whom they may devoure as the Devill doth According to that resolution of Bracton and Fleta Exercere debet Rex potestatem Iuriâ— sicut Dei Vicarius Ministeri in terra quia illa Potestas SOLIVS DEI EST potestas autem injuriae DIABOLI ET NON DEI Cujus horum operum fecerit Rex ejus minister erit Igitur dum facit justitiam vicarius est Regis aeterni MINISTER AVTEM DIABOLI dum declinat ad injuriam Therefore they are so farre forth onely to be obeyed and not resisted as they are Gods Ordinance and lawfull Magistrates not as they are tyrants and the Devils Agents we might have obeyed the evill spirits themselves whiles they continued good Angels Ergo we must not resist them now they are turned Devils is ill Logick course Divinity contrary to the 1 Pet. 5. 8 9. Iam. 4. 7. Secondly because those who resist shall receive to themselves damnation temporall or eternall since they resist Gods Ordinance v. 2. But that subiects should be temporally and eternally damned only for resisting tyrannicall Magistrates or their Cavaleers and that by authority from the Parliament when they with armed violence most impiously set themselves to subvert Religion Lawes Liberty Propertie and take away their lives against all Lawes of God and Man for which they themselves incurre both temporall and eternall damnation is such a Paradox as is no wayes warranted by but directly opposite to the Scripture Therefore it must be intended onely of resisting lawfull Authority and iust commands 3. They must be subiected to not resisted because Rulers are not a terror to good work but to evil v. 3. Now is this a reason why Subiects should not resist tyrannicall oppressing Princes Magistrats or their Instruments who are only a terror to good works not to evill who do evill and only evill continually even with both hands doubtlesse not We must not resist Rulers who are a terror to good works but to evill Ergo we must not resist Rulers who are a terror to good works not to evill as our Opposites conclude hence is to argue poiâ—â— blank against the Apostle Ergo we may and must resist them to our powers lest we be partakers of their sinnes and punishments and become authors of Religions and the Commonwealths subversion is a more proper inference Fourthly the Apostle subjoynes this argument against resistance Wilt thou not then be afraid of the power doe that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same Vers 3. That power is not to bee resisted which wee need not be afraid of and of whom we shall have prayse whiles we doe that which is good But this onely can bee intended of a lawfull power justly executed not of Tyrants or their ill Ministers bent with force of armes to ruine Religion Lawes Liberties who onely terrifie disgrace discountenance those that are good applaud advance none but those who are evill and as Micah writes Chap. 3. 2. 3. Love the evill and hate the good and pluck off their skin from off them and their flesh from off their bones c. Therefore this inhibition of resistance extends onely to lawfull Magistrates not to ungodly oppressing Tyrants Fiftly he is not to be resisted but obeyed because he is the Minister of God to thee for good Vers 4. But is this true of Tyrants of ungodly Magistrates bent to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties and destroy their people True of Caligula of Nero who wished all the Romans had but one necke that he might cut them all off at one stroke and purposely fired Rome to consume it beholding the flames as a most delightfull spectacle Are such the Ministers of God for our good here intended or not rather the very Pests Judgements Scourges Wolves Cut-throats destroyers of mankind and direct Antinodes to all things that are good If these be not within the Apostles definition they are without his inhibition which extends onely to such who are the Ministers of God to us for good and implies a lawfulnesse of resisting those who are the Devils Ministers to us for evill rather then Gods for good Sixtly He subjoynes this further reason of obedience and not resistance Vers 5. But if thou dost that which is evill be afraid for he beareth not the Sword in vaine for hee is the Minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill which no wayes suites with a Tyrant bent to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties For he secures all evill men especially those who are instrumentall to advance his cruelty and oppressions gives liberty to all manner of wickednesses Proclaimes impunity to his ill instruments knowing that of the Poet to be true Libertas scelerum est quae Regna invisa tuetur c. He beareth the sword not onely in vaine in reference to any good end for the promoting of Gods glory and the publike good but likewise draweth it forth and useth it directly against both And is so farre from being a Minister of God or revenger to execute wrath upon them that doe evill that he is the very Minister of the Devill Tertullian Nihil nisi grande aliquid bonum a Nerone damnatum This reason then extends onely to righteous Governours in their execution of justice upon wicked malefactors wherein they must not be resisted Not to bloody gracelesse lawlesse Tyrants and their instruments who by the rule of contraries may and ought to be resisted in
the estate that it is now the title of Empire being little more then that of the Duke of Venice the soveraingty writes the Historian in the Margin remaining in the States of the Empire All that is objected against the premises is that passage of Tertullian much insisted on Colimus ergo Imperatorē sic quomodo nobis licet ipsi expedit ut hominem à DEO SECUNDUM quicquid est à Deo consecutum SOLO DEO MINOREM Hoc et ipse volet Sic enim OMNIBUS MAJOR EST DUM SOLO VERO DEO MINOR EST. Sic ipsis Diis major est dum ipsi in poteste sunt ejus c. To which I answer that these words onely prove the Emperour in the Roman State to be the highest Officer and Magistrate under God of any one particular person not that he was the Soveraigne highest power above the Senate and people collectively considered And the occasion of these words will discover the Authors intention to be no other which was this The Christians in that age were persecuted and put to death by Scapula President of Carthage to whom Tertullian writes this Booke because they refused to adore the Emperour for a God to sweare by his Genius and to observe his solemnities and triumphs in an Ethnicall manner as is evident by the words preceding this passage Sic circa Majestatem Imperatoris infamamur c. and by sundry notable passages in his Apologeticus In answer to which accusation Tertullian reasons in the Christians behalfe that though they adored not the Emperour as a God yet they reverenced him as a man next under God as one onely lesse then God as one greater then all others whiles lesse onely then the true God and greater then the Idol Gods themselves who were in the Emperours power c. Here was no other thing in question but whether the Emperour were to be adored as God not whether he or the Roman Senate and people were the greatest highest Soveraigne power And the answer being that he was but a man next under God above any other particular officer in the Roman State is no proofe at all that he was paramount the whole Senate and people collectively considered or of greater Soveraigne power then they which the premises clearely disprove Adde that this Father in his Apologie thus censures the Pagan Romans for their grosse flattery of their Emperours whom they feared more then their Gods appliable to our present times Siquidem majore formidine callidiore timiditate Caesarem observatis quam ipsum de Olympo Jovem c. adeo in isto irreligiosi erga dees vestros deprehendimini cum plus timoris humano Domino dicatis citius denique apud vos per omnes Deos quam per unum genium Caesaris pejeratur Then he addes Interest hominis Deo cedere satis habeat appellari Imperator grande hoc nomen est quod a Deo tradetur negat illum imperatorem qui deum dicit nisi homo sit non est imperator Hominem se esse etiam triumphans in illo sublimissimo curru admonetur Suggeritur enim ci a tergo Respice post te hominem memento te Etiam hoc magis gaudet tanta se gloria coruscare ut illi admonitio conditionis suae sit necessaria Major est qui revocatur ne se deum existimet Augustus imperii formator ne Dominum quidem dici se volebat et hoc enim Dei est cognomen Dicam plane Imperatorem Dominum sed more communi sed quando non cogor ut Dominum Dei vice dicam Concluding thus Nullum bonum sub exceptione personarum administramus c. lidem sumus Imperatoribus qui vicinis nostris Male enim velle male facere male dicere male cogitare de quoquam ex aequo vetamur Quodcunque non licet in Imperatorem id nec in quenquam quod in neminem eo forsitan magis nec in ipsum qui per deum tantus est c. From which it is evident that the Christians did not deifie nor flatter their Emperours more then was meet and deemed they might not resist them onely in such cases where they might resist no others and so by consequence lawfully resist them where it was lawfull for them to resist other private men who did injuriously assault them If then the Roman Emperors were not the highest Soveraigne power in the Roman State when Paul writ this Epistle but the Roman Senate and State as I have cleared and if the Parliament not the King be the supremest Soveraigne power in our Realme as I have abundantly manifested then this objected Text so much insisted on by our opposites could no wayes extend to the Roman Senate State or our English Parliament who are the very higher powers themselves and proves most fatall and destructive to their cause of any other even by their owne Argument which I shall thus doubly discharge upon them First that power which is the highest and most soveraigne Authority in any State or kingdome by the Apostles and our Antagonists owne doctrine even in point of conscience neither may nor ought in what case soever say our opposites to be forcibly resisted either in their persons ordinances commands instruments offices or Armed Souldiers by any inferiour powers persons or subjects whatsoever especially when their proceedings are just and legall under paine of temporall and eternall condemnation But the Senate among the Romans not the Emperour and the Parliament in England not the King really were and are the higher Powers and most soveraigne Authority Therefore by the Apostles own Doctrine even in point of conscience they neither may nor ought to be disobeyed or forcibly resisted in any case whatsoever either in their Persons Ordinances Commands Instruments Officers or Armed Souldiers by the King himselfe his Counsellors Armies Cavaliers or by any inferiour powers persons or Subjects whatsoever especially when their proceedings are just and legall as hitherto they have beene under paine of temporall and eternall condemnation I hope the Doctor and his Camerads will now beshrew themselves that ever they medled with this Text and made such a halter to strangle their owne treacherous cause and those who have taken up armes in its defence Secondly that Power which is simply highest and supreame in any State may lawfully with good conscience take up Armes to resist or suppresse any other power that shall take up armes to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties the Republike or the just Rights and Priviledges of the Subject or of this higher power This is our opposites owne argumentation Therefore the Parliament being in verity the highest supreame Power in our State may lawfully with good conscience take up Armes to resist or suppresse his Majesties Malignant Popish Forces or any other power which already hath or hereafter shall be raised to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties the Republike just Rights and Priviledges of Parliament
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
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
then so dangerous that THE VERY FORCE OF CONSCIENCE AND NECESSITY DID LEAD THEM TO ARMS and to make a League to defend themselves THOVGH CAESAR OR ANY IN HIS NAME WOVLD MAKE WAR AGAINST THEM That if the Emperour had kept his bonds and Covenants they would have done their duties but because he began first to make the breach the fault is his For since he attempteth to root out Religion and subvert our Libertie he giveth us cause enough TO RESIST HIM WITH GOOD CONSCIENE The matter standing as it doth we may resist him as may be shewed by Sacred and prophane Stories Vnjust violence is not Gods Ordinance neither are we bound to him by any other reason then if he keep the conditions on which he was created Emperour BY THE LAWS THE MSELVES IT IS PROVIDED that the inferiour Magistrate shall not infringe the right of the Superiour and so likewise if the superiour Magistrate exceed the limits of his power and command that which is wicked not onely we need not obey him BVT IF HE OFFER FORCE WE MAY RESIST HIM So they in point of Law and Conscience then publikely resolved Secondly that the French Protestants and others in the reign of King Francis the second Anno 1559. being much oppressed by the Guisian faction who had got the K. into their power and wholly swayed him as his Maj. ill Councellors sway him now there upon assembling together to consult of some just defence to preserve the just and ancient government of the Realm They demaunded advice TOVCHING LAW AND CONSCIENCE OF MANY LEARNED LAWYERS AND DIVINES who resolved THAT THEY MIGHT LAWFVLLY oppose themselvs against the Government which the House of Guise had usurped and AT NEED TAKE ARMS TO REPVLSE THEIR VIOLENCE so as the Princes who in this case are born Magistrates or some one of them would undertake it being ordered by the States of the Realm or by the sounder part of them That defence of Religion and Liberties against violence and oppression were iust causes of Warre Et quod pia arma ea sint ultra quae nulla restat spesvitae nec salutis A like resolution and determination was mado by the chief Dukes Peers Nobles and Officers of France Anno 1614. which you may read in the Appendix Thirdly that the Angrognians and Waldensian Protestants of Lucerne and Piedment in the year 1558. to 1561 being persecuted by the Lord of Trinitie and their Popish Soveraigns assembling solemnly together to consult how to prevent the great dangers then at hand after long prayer and calling upon God for his grace and Spirit of direction and Counsell well to manage their weighty affairs and to preserve themselves and the Protestant Religion professed by them concluded in the end to enter into a solemn mutuall Covenant and to ioyn in a League together for defence of themselves and their Religion whereupon they all promised by Gods grace and assistance to maintain the pure preaching of the Gospell and administration of the Sacraments and one to ayd and assist the other c. which they did with good successe obtaining many glorious victories against invading persecuting enemies The like did Zisca the Thahorites and Bohemians heretofore and of later times as the Maginall Authors largely relate resolving it iust and lawfull for them in Law and Conscience to defend themselves and their Religion by force of Arms against their persecuting Soveraignes Fourthly that the Netherland Provinces being oppressed in their Bodies Estates by the Duke of Alua and Spanyards Tyrannie and in their Religion and Consciences by the introduced Irquisition to extirpate Religion did after serious deliberation and consultation with learned men of all sorts unanimously conclude and enter into a solemn Covenant to defend their Libities Religion Laws by force of Arms against the Spanish Tyrannie as you may read at large in their Histories And in the year 1572. The Prince of Orange and his Confederates having levyed a goodly Army to relieve Mons besieged by the Duke of Alua caused this notable Protestation to be printed and published to the World as well in his own name as in his Confederates giving a reason of the Arms which he had taken up as followeth Wee William by the Grace of God Prince of Orange Earle of Nassau c. To all Noble-men Knights Gentlemen and others of what quality soever of these Netherlands which desire the Liberty thereof being miserably tyrannized and oppressed by the Duke of Alva the Spaniards and other their friends TRAYTORS AND MVRTHERERS OF THEIR OWN COVNTREY We declare that everyone of us for a particular love and zeale he beares unto his Countrey and for the glory of God which we desire above all have often sought by all meanes the good and quiet of the Countrey as well by Petitions and other mild meanes as by force of Armes thinking to draw those that were as we are to doe the like sometimes by sighes and prayers unto God having had patience untill that it should please him to mollifie the hearts of the said Tyrants but in the end solicited and called generally and particularly by the inhabitants of the said Countrey by reason of the inhumanities and oppressions We have in the Name of God ACCORDING TO OVR CONSCIENCES TAKEN ARMES protesting before God and his Angels and before all Men present and to come that we have not been moved hereunto by any private passion but with an ardent desire which we have to oppose our selves against this more then barbarous and unsupportable tyranny to the Proclamations Edicts taxes Imposts and charges of the hundreth thirtieth twentieth and tenth penny imposed by the insatiable covetousnesse of the Duke of Alva against the Lawes Liberties Freedomes and ancient Priviledges of the said countrey which Lawes Liberties freedomes and ancient priviledges we mean by the grace of God to restore unto the said countrey holding it under the obedience of their Prince and naturall Lord as we are bound to do affirming and maintaining that all Princes and Noblemen Gentlemen Commonweales or others of what quality soever be they strangers or home-bred that have been moved to give us aide or assistance IN THIS SO IVST AN ENTERPRISE have not don it for any other intent but for true piety and compassion which they have with us of the said miseries and calamities Wherefore we pray and entreat every one both in generall and particular to assure themselves that we intend not to doe wrong to any man nor to attempt upon the good estates or honour of any of what quality soever were he of the Clergy but are ready to aid and assist every one freely and willingly as for his liberty EVERY ONE IS BOVND TO SVCCOR VS BY ALL DVE AND POSSIBLE MEANES In the mean time we will give order that God and the countrey may be served in procuring the preservation of the people and the defence of their houses wives and children Praying to God that he
or the Subjects and every man with safe conscience may chearefully serve in such a warre upon the Parliaments encouragement or command without guilt of treason or rebellion either in Law or Conscience For the third Question Whether Tyrants or unjust oppressing Magistrates as they are such be within the intendment of this Text and not to be resisted in any case I have fully cleared this before from the occasion scope and arguments used in this Chapter that they are not within the compasse of this Text as they are such and may be resisted in their Tyranny and oppressions notwithstanding this inhibition I shall not repeat but onely fortifie this Position with some new reasons and authorities First then that which is not the ordinance of God but rather of the Devill and the meere sinne and enormity of the Governour himselfe not of the Government is not within the intention of this Text and may lawfully bee resisted without any violation of it But Tyrants and unjust oppressing Magistrates as they are such are not Gods ordinance but rather the Devills and their Tyranny and oppression is onely the sinne and enormity of the Governours themselves not of the government A truth granted by all men Therefore they are not within the compasse of this Text and may lawfully be resisted without any violation of it Secondly that which is no point of the Magistrates lawfull power ordained of God but diametrally repugnant to it cannot be within the meaning of this Text and may lawfully be resisted but the tyranny oppression rapine and violence of lawlesse Kings and Magistrates are such as all must and doe acknowledge Ergo they are not within the verge and compasse of this Text and may lawfully bee resisted Thirdly all powers intended in the Text are not only ordained but ordered of God that is Paraeus with others observe they are circumscribed bounded with certain Rules or Lawes of justice and honesty within which they must containe themselves else they exorbitate from Gods ordinance when they passe beyond these limits and become none of Gods This the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Arias Montanus and others render ordinatae and the Margin of our English Bibles are ordered of God doth sufficiently warrant being coupled with the subsequent limitations For rulers are not a terrour to good workes but to evill c. they are Gods Ministers attending continually on this very thing Now the Tyranny and oppression of Kings and other Rulers are meere exorbitances arbitrary illegall actions exceeding the bounds of justice and honesty prescribed by the Lawes of God and men Therefore not within the limits of this Text and resistible Fourthly it is generally accorded by all Commentators that though the lawfull power of Princes or other Magistrates degenerating unto Tyrants be of God and not to be resisted yet the Tyranny it selfe and abuse of this power is of Satan not of God and the vice of the persons onely not of the Power it selfe whence they conclude that Tyrants are not within the meaning of this Scripture So Origen Paraeus Willet with most others on this Text and Zuinglius most expresly Explanatio Artic. 41. Tom. 1. f. 82. 83. where he complaines that many Tyrants cheate steale rob slay plunder and attempt any thing against their subjects to oppresse them assuming a pretext and vayle of their malice from this Text of Paul Yea Dominicus Soto Cajetan Pererius and other Popish commentators on this place observe that Paul addes this Epithet of higher or excelling powers omitted by him in other parallel Texts of purpose to exclude Tyrants who are no excelling Lords nor lawfull Powers reigning oft times by Gods permission for the peoples punishment not by his ordination for their good and blame Bueer for saying that Tyrants power is from God as if he were ths author of sinne and Tyranny This then fully answers that absurd errour of Doctor Ferne wherein all his force is placed That the Power in Pauls dayes which he here prohibits to resist were subverters of that which was good and the Roman Emperors Tyrants where he sottishly confounds the tyranny lusts and vices of the Emperors persons which were detestable with their power it selfe which was good and commendable as if the Imperiall power it selfe was ill because Nero was ill and was therefore justly condemned to death by the Roman Senate as a publike enemy to the Roman State though they approved and continued his just Imperiall principality which lasted in succession for many hundred yeares after his censure death To which I shall onely adde that though Nero himselfe were a Tyrant yet the Roman Senate and all their Inferiour Offices were not Tyrants many of them no doubt being just and upright Magistrates The Precept therefore being thus in the generall and the plurall number Let every soule be subject unto the higher powers nor personall let them be subject to Nero or speciall to the Roman Emperour whom Paul no doubt would have specified had he specially intended them as our opposites fondly dreame we may safely conclude that the Apostle intended it onely of lawfull powers and Magistrates not of Nero or other Tyrants And writ this to Christians onely to whom he dedicates this Epistle witnesse Ch. 1. V. 7. To all that be at Rome beloved of God called to be Saints c. not to Pagan Romans as the Doctor dreames to whom he writes not much lesse to the Roman Senate who were then the soveraigne power and therefore could bee subject to no other but themselves Precepts of obedience to children and Servants concerne not parents and masters as such in point of submission or obedience For the fourth Quere Whether Kings and Kingdomes be Gods ordinance or an institution Jure divino not a humane ordinance instituted Jure humano or how farre divine or humane Is a necessary considerable question grounded on this Text and very needfull to be discussed to cleare the present controversie Some of our opposites are so intoxicated with the divinity of Monarchy as they confidently determine hat the efficient cause of royall Monarchicall power is onely God not the people That Kings receive no power or regall Authority from the people but from God alone That the power of Kings is not a humane but a divine power of which God onely is the efficient cause That the people doe not make the King but God properly and absolutely this power right and authority he hath from God That the King hath no dominion and power from his Subjects by way of trust but from God from whom he hath his kingdome and power so that by Idolatry and oppression he breakes not the trust reposed in him by his Subjects because the people HAVE COMMITTED NOTHING TO HIS CHARGE but God onely c. For proofe whereof they produce Prov. 8. 15. By me Kings reigne Dan. 2. 21. God removeth Kings and setteth up Kings Dan. 4. 17. 25. The most