THE THIRD PART OF THE SOVERAIGNE POWER OF PARLIAMENTS and KINGDOMES Wherein the Parliaments present Necessary Defensive Warre against the Kings offensive Malignant Popish forces and Subjects taking up Defensive Armes against their Soveraignes and their Armies in some Cases is copiously manifested to be Just Lawfull both in point of Law and Conscience and neither Treason nor Rebellion in either by inpregnable Reasons and Authorities of all kindes Together With a Satisfactory Answer to all Objections from Law Scripture Fathers Reason hitherto alledged by Dr. Ferne or any other late opposite Pamphleters whose grosse Mistakes in true Stating of the present Controversie in sundry points of Divinity Antiquity History with their absurd irrationall Logicke and Theologie are here more fully discovered refuted than hitherto they have been by any Besides other particulars of great concernment By WILLIAM PRYNNE Utter-Barrester of Lincolnes Inne 2 Sam. 10. 12. Be of good courage and let us play the men for our People and for the City of our God and the Lord doe what seemeth him good Esther 9. 1 2. 5 10. In the day that the enemies of the Jewes hoped to have power over them the Jewes gathered themselves together into their Cities through out all the Provinces of King Ahashuerus to lay hand on those that sought their lives and no man could withstand them for the feare of them fell upon all people Thus the Jewes sinote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword and slaughter and destruction and did what they would with those that hated them but on the spoile laid they not their hand It is this eighth day of May 1643. Ordered by the Committee of the House of Commons in Parliament for Printing that this Booke Intituled The third Part of the Soveraign Power of Parliaments and Kingdomes be Printed by Michael Sparke senior John White Printed at London for Michael Sparke Senior 1643. TO HIS EVER-HONOVRED NOBLE KINDE FRIENDS THE Right Honourable Lord Ferdinando Fairfax the Right Worshipfull Sir William Waller and Sir William Bruerton Knights Commanders in Chiefe of the Parliaments Forces in severall Counties Deservedly Renowned Worthies YOUR Incomparable Valour Zeale Activity Industry for the preservation of Your Dearest Country Religion Lawes Liberties and the very being of Parliaments all now endangered by an unnaturall generation of Popish and Malignant Vipers lately risen up in Armes against them in diverse parts of this Realme and those many miraculous Victories with which God hath beene lately pleased to Crowne your cordiall endeavours to promote his glory and the Publicke safety as they have justly demerited some gratefull generall Acknowledgements from the whole Representative Body of the State so they may in some sort challenge a private gratulatory Retribution from Me who have formerly had the happinesse to participate in your Christian Affections and now reape much Consolation by your Heroick Actions Having therefore seasonably finished this Third part Of the Soveraigne Power of Parliaments and Kingdoms copiously Vindicating the Lawfulnesse Iustnesse of the Parliaments present Necessary Defensive Warre in which you have had the Honour to be imployed not onely as Chiefe but which is more as most successefull Commanders in your severall Countries in point both of Law and Conscience and fully wiping off those blacke Aspersions of TREASON and REBELLION which the opposite party really guilty of these crimes against both King and Kingdome as I have elsewhere manifested and here lightly touched have out of Malice Ignorance or both conjoyned most injuriously cast upon your Loyall honourable proceedings which rejoyce the soules of all true Philopaters who cordially affect their Country or Religion I could not without much ingratitude yea injustice have published it to the world but under the Patronage of your ever-honored resplendent names who have so valorously so successefully pleaded this Cause already in the Field that it needs the lesse assistance from the Presse My many inevitable interruptions and straites of time in its contexture which may happily detract something from its perfection shall I hope derogate nothing from your Honourable Friendly acceptation whom I have thus conjoyned in the Dedication because the Parliament hath united you in their present Warlike employments and God himselfe joyntly honoured you with successe even to admiration among the Good indignation amidst Malignants envy with the Malicious and I trust to an active sedulous emulation in all your Fellow Commanders imployed in other Quarters in the selfesame Cause Your present busie publike and mine owne private Imployments prohibite me to expatiate Wherefore earnestly beseeching the Glorious Lord of Hosts to be ever mightily present with your severall Noble Persons Forces and to make you alwayes eminently active Valorous Victorious as hitherto he hath done till Peace and Truth Tranquillity and Piety by your severall triumphant Proceedings shall once more lovingly embrace and kisse each other in our divided unreformed sinfull Kingdomes And till the effect of these just warres You manage shall be quietnesse and assurance to us and our Posterities after us for ever I humbly recommend your Persons Proceedings to his protection who can secure you in and from all dangers of warre and rest Your Honours Worships most affectionate Friend and Servant WILLIAM PRYNNE To the Reader Christian Reader I Who have beene alwayes hitherto a Cordiall Desirer endeavourer of Peace am here necessitated to present Thee with a Discourse of Warre to justifie The Lawfulnesse of the Parliaments present taking up of necessary Defensive Armes Which neither their Endeavours nor my with many others Prayers could with any safety to our Priviledges Persons Religion Liberty Realmes now forcibly invaded by his Majesties Popish and Malignant Cavallieres hitherto prevent or conjure downe To plead the Justnesse of a Warre of an unnaturall Civill warre the worst of any of a Warre betweene the Head and Members may seeme not onely a Paradox but a Prodigie in a Land heretofore blessed with an aged uninterrupted Peace And Lucans Bella per AEmathios plusquam civilia Campos c. now most unhappily revived among us being but Historicall and Poeticall may passe the world with lesse admiration and censure than this harsh Peece which is both Legally Theologically like the Subject matter Polemicall But as the ayme the end of all just War is and ought to be onely future setled Peace so is the whole drift of this Military Dissertation not to foment or protract but end our bloody Warres which nothing hath more excited animated lengthened in the Adverse party than a strong conceite if not serious beliefe that The Parliaments Forces neither would nor lawfully might in point of Law or Conscience forcibly resist or repulse their invasive Armes without danger of High Treason and Rebellion which Bug-beare I have here refuted removed and the In-activity the much admired slownesse of many of our Forces in resisting in preventing their vigorous Proceedings which a little timely vigilance and diligence had easily controlled It is a more than
all presidents in former ages in High affront of the priviledges honour power of the Parliament and Fundamentall knowns Lawe of the Realme Since which time his Majestie having contrary to his former Proclamations and frequent Printed solemne Declarations entertained not onely divers Irish Popâ—sh Rebels but likewise English and Outlandish Papists in his Army and given Commissions to sundry Arch Popish Recusants to Arme themselves and raise Forces against the Parliament and Kingdom now in the field in all the Northerne parts Wales and other places and that under the Popes owne consecrated Banner as many report in defiance of our Protestant Religion designed by the Popish Party both at home and abroad to no lesse then utter extirpation in England as well as in Ireland if not in Scotland too as some of them openly professe the Parliament are hereupon necessitated to augment and recrute their forces as for the precedent ends at first so now more especially for the necessary defence of the Protestant Religion established among us by law against which they and all others who are not wilfully blinded visibly discerne a most apparant desperate conspiracie which though not cleerely perceived but onely justly suspected at first doth now appeare all circumstances and agents considered to be the very Embrio and primitive cause of this deplorable warre against which the Parliament and subjects are now more necessitated and engaged to desend themselves then ever seeing they have by all possible meanes endeavored to prevent this warre at first and since to accommodate it though in vaine upon just reasonable and honorable safe termes for King and Kingdome The sole Question then in this case thus truely stated will be Whether his Majestie having contrary to his Oath Duty the fundamentall Laws of God and the Realme raised an Armie of Malignants Papists Forraigners against his Parliament Kingdome People to make an Offensive warre upon them to murther rob spoyle deprive them of their peace liberties properties estates to impose unlawfull taxes by force upon them protect Delinquents and evill Councellors against the Parliaments Iustice and violently to undermine our established Protestant Religion the Common-wealth of England legally assembled in Parliament and all Subjects in such cases by Command and direction from both Houses of Parliament may not lawfully and justly without any Treason or Rebellion in point of Law and Conscience take up defensive Armes to preserve the Priviledges of Parliament their Lawes lives liberties estates properties Religion to bring Delinquents and ill Councellours to condigne punishment and rescue his seduced Majestie out of their hands and power though he be personally present with them to assist and countenance them in this unnaturall destructive warre And under correction notwithstanding any thing I ever yet heard or read to the contrary I conceive affirmatively that they may justly do it both in point of Law and Conscience I shall begin with Law because in this unhappie controversie it must direct the conscience First I have already proved in Judgement of Law the Parliament and Kingdome assembled in it to be the Soveraigne power and of greater authority then the King who is but their publike Minister in point of civill Iustice and Generall in matters of warre as the Roman Kings and Emperours were and other forraigne Kings of old and at this day are The Parliament then being the highest power and having principall right and authority to denounce conclude and proclaime warre as I have manifested in the debate of the Militia may not onely lawfully resist but oppugne suppresse all Forces raised against it and the Kingdomes peace or welfare Secondly the principall end of the Kingdomes originall erecting Parliaments and investing them with supreame power at first was to defend not onely with good Lawes and Councell but when absolute necessitie requires as now it doth with open force of Armes the Subjects Liberties Persons Estates Religion Lawes Lives Rights from the encroachments and violence of their Kings and to keepe Kings within due bounds of Law and Iustice the end of instituting the Senate and Ephori among the Lacaedemonians the Senate and Dictators among the Romans the Forum Suprarbiense and Justitia Aragoniae among the Aragonians of Parliaments Dietts and Assemblies of the estates in other forraigne Kingdomes and in Scotland as I shall prove at large in its proper place This is cleare by the proceedings of all our Parliaments in former ages Especially in King Iohns Henry the third Edward the 1. 2. 3. and Richard the seconds Raignes by the latter Parliaments in King Iames his raigne yea of 3. Caroli the last dissolved Parliament and this now sitting whose principall care and imployment hath beene to vindicate the Subjects Liberties properties lawes and Religion from all illegall encroachments on them by the Crown and its ill Instruments by the forecited resolutions of Bracton Fleta the Myrror of Iustices Vowell Holinshed the Councell of Basill and others that the Parliament ought to restraine and bridle the king when he casts off the bridle of the Law and invades the Subjects Liberties especially with open force of Armes in an Hostile manner and by the constant practise of our Ancestors and the Barons Warres in maintenance of Magna Charta with other good Lawes and Priviledges confirmed by Parliament If then the Parliament be instrusted by the Kingdome with this Superlative power thus to protect the Subjects Liberties properties Lawes persons Religion c. against the kings invasions on them by policie or violence they should both betray their trust yea the whole kingdome too if they should not with open Force of Armes when Policy Councell and Petitions will not doe it defend their owne and the Subjects Liberties persons priviledges c. against his Majesties offensive Armies which invade them intending to make the whole kingdome a present booty to their insaciable rapine and a future vassall to his Majesties absolute arbitrary power by way of conquest I reade in Bodin that the Roman Senate being no way able to restraine Caesar tooke their refuge to that ancient Decree of the Senate which was commonly made but in dangerous times of the Common-wealâ— Videant Consules caeteri Magistratus ne quid detrimenti capiat Respublica Let the Consulls and other Majestrates fore see that the Common-weale take no harme With which decree of the Senate the Consulls being armed sodainely raised their power commanding Pompey to take up Armes and raise an Army against Caesar to oppose his violent proceedings by force who after his conquest of Pompey refusing to rise up to the Consulls Pretors and whole Senate out of his pride through his ill Councellors advise and talking with them as if they had beene but private men he so farre offended both the Senate and people that to free the Republicke from his Tyranny and preserve their hereditary Liberties they conspired his death and soone after murthered him in the Senate-house where they gave him
no lesse than 23. wounds And Hieronimus Blanca assures us that the Suprarbiense Forum Iustitia Aragoniae or States of Aragâ—n erected to withstand the tyrannie and encroachments of their kings may by the Laws of their Realme assemble together and RESIST THEIR KING WITH FORCE OF ARMES as oft as there shall bee neede to repulse his or his Officers violence against the Lawes For when they erected this Court they said It would be little worth to have good Lawes enacted and a middle Court of Iustice betweene the King and people appointed if it might not be lawfull to take up Armes for their Defence when it was needfull being agreeable to the very Law of nature and reason Because then it will not be sufficient to fight with Counsell For if this were not so and the State and Subjects in such cases might not lawfully take up armes all things had long ere this been in the power of Kings Therefore no doubt our Parliament and State as well as others may by the very Law of Nature and fundamentall institution of Parliaments now justly take up Defensive armes to preserve their Liberties Lawes Lives Estates Religion from vassallage and ruine Thirdly Our owne Parliaments Prelates Nobles and Commons in all ages especially in times of Popery as well in Parliament as out have by open force of armes resisted suppressed the oppressions rapines vnjust violence and armies of their Princes raised against them Yea incountred their Kings in open Battells taken their persons Prisoners and sometimes expelled nay deposed them from their Royall authority when they became incorrigible open professed enemies to their kingdomes their Subjects seeking the ruine slavery and desolation of those whom by Office Duty Oath and common Iustice they were bound inviolably to protect in Liberty and peace as the premised Histories of Archigallo Emerian Vortigern Segebert Osred Ethelred Bernard Edwin Ceolwulfe King John Henry the 3 d. Edward 1. and 2. Richard the 2 Henry the 6 th our British Saxon English Kings and other examples common in our owne Annalls plentifully manifest Neither are their examples singular but all Kingdomes generally throughout the world in all ages have done the like when their Kings degenerated into Tyrants of which there are infinite precedens in History which actions all ages all Kingdomes have alwaies reputed lawfull both in point of Policy Law Religion as warranted by the very Lawes of Nature Reason State Nations God which instruct not onely particular persons but whole Cities and Kingdomes for their owne necessary defence preservation the supportation of humane Societie and Libertie to protect themselves against all unlawfull violence and Trranny even of their Kings themselves or their Ministers to whom neither the Lawes of God Nature Man nor any civill Nation ever yet gave the least authority to Murther Spoile Oppresse enslave their Subjects or deprive them of their lawfull Liberties or Estates which resistance were it unlawfull or unjust as many ignorant Royallists and Parasites now teach some few oppressing tyrannizing wilfull Princes might without the least resistance ruine murther enslave the whole world of men overthrow all setled formes of civill government extirpate Christian Religion and destroy all humane Society at their pleasures all which had beene effected yea all States and Kingdomes totally subverted long agoe by ambitious Tyrannizing lawlesse Princes had not this Lawfull Naturall Hereditary power of resisting and opposing their illegall violence inherent in their Parliaments States Kingdomes restrained and suppressed their exorbitances of this kinde Now that this necessary Defensive opposition and resistance against open Regall Hostile violence which hath beene ever held lawfull and frequently practised in all Kingdomes all ages heretofore as just and necessary should become sodenly unlawfull to our Parliament and Kingdome onely at this instant seemes very unreasonable unto me Fouthly It is the expresse resolution of Aristotle Xenophon Polibius Pope Elutherius in his Epistle to our first Christian King Lucius King Edward the Confessor in his established Lawes c. 17. the Councell of Paris Anno 829. and Isiodor cited by it Iohn Bodin Iohn Mariana and generally of all forraigne Divines and Polititians Pagan or Christian yea of Bracton Fleta Fortescue and King Iames himselfe that a King governing in a setled Kingdome ceaseth to be a King and degenerates into a Tyrant so soone as hee leaves to rule by his Lawes much more when he begins to invade his Subjects Persons Rights Liberties to set up an Abitrary power impose unlawfull Taxes raise Forces and make Warre upon his Subjects whom he should Protect and rule in peace to pillage plunder waste and spoile his Kingdome imprison murther and destroy his people in an hostile manner to captivate them to his pleasure the very highest degree of Tyranny condemned and detested by God and all good men The whole State and Kingdome therefore in such cases as these for their owne just necessary preservation may lawfully with force of Armes when no other course can secure them not onely passively but actively resist their Prince in such his violent exorbitant tyrannicall proceedings without resisting any kingly lawfull royall Authority Vested in the Kings person for the kingdomes preservation onely not destruction because in and as to these illegall oppressions tyrannicall actions not warranted but prohibited by the Lawes of God and the Realme to whom he is accountable and by whom he is justly censurable for them he is no lawfull King nor Majestrate but an unjust oppressing Tyrant and a meere private man who as to these proceedings hath quite denuded himselfe of his just Regall authority So that all those wholsome Lawes made by the whole State in Parliament for the necessary preservation and defence of their Kings Royall Person and lawfull Soveraigne power the suppression of all Insurrections Treasons Conspiracies and open Warres against them whiles they governe their people justly according to Law as all good Princes are obliged to doe by oath and duty or the open violent resisting of their Lawfull authority and Commands to which all Subjects both in point of Law and Conscience ought cheerfully and readily to Submit will yeeld no publike Countenance Encouragement or Protection at all to Kings in their irregall tyrannicall oppressions or violent courses especially when they turne professed publike enemies to their people proclaime open Warre against them invade their Lawes Liberties Goods Houses Persons and exercise all acts of Hostilitie against them as fatre forth as the most barbarous Forraigne Enemies would doe It being against all common sence and reason to conceive that our Parliaments Lawes which strictly inhibit and punish the very smallest violations of the publike peace with all kinds of Oppressions Robberies Trespasses Batteries Assaults Bloodsheds Fraies Murthers Routs Riots Insurrections Burglaries Rapes Plunderings Force-able Entries Invasions of the Subjects Liberties or Properties in all other persons and greatest publike Officers whatsoever
whose Delinquences are so much the more hainous execrable and censurable as their persons honours and places are more eminent should so farre countenance justifie or patronize them onely in the King the Supreame fountaine of Iustice ad tutelam Legis corporum bonorum erectus as Fortescue and Sir Edward Cooke resolve Cujus Potestas Iuris est non Injuriae cum sit author Iuris non debet inde injuriarum nasci occasio unde Iura naseuntur as Bracton and Fleta determine as not to permit the Subjects under paine of Rebellion and high Treason by force of Armes upon expresse command and direction of the whole Kingdome in Parliament so much as to defend their Persons Goods Estates Houses Wives Children Liberties Lives Religion against the open violence of the King himselfe or his Malignant plundring murthering Papists Caveleers When as Kings of all others as Bracton For escue and Mariana prove at large both by Oath and Duty ought to be more observant of and obedient to the Laws of God and their Realmes which are no respectors of Persons then the very meanest of their Subjects That Precept then of Paul Rom. 13. 1. 2. 3. Let every Soule be subject to the higher Powers c. And the Statute of 25. E. 3. c. 2. with other obsolete Acts which declare it High Treason to levy Warre against the King in his Realme must needs be intended of and quallified with these subsequent just limitations sutable to their genuine sense and meaning to wit That as long and so farre foorth as Kings justly and uprightly doe execute their just Royall power conferred on them by God and their people according to the Law of God and their Realmes to the Protection encouragement and praise of all their good Subjects and the deserved punishment onely of Malefactors they must and ought to be cheerefully obeyed and quietly submitted to as Gods owne Ministers without the least resistance private or publike neither ought any private men upon any private injuries of their owne authority to raise up in Armes against them seeing they are publike Magistrates in whom all the Kingdome have an interest without the generall assent and authority of the whole State and Kingdome or of both Houses of Parliment which represents it But if Kings degenerate into Tyrants and turne professed enemies to their Kingdomes Parliaments People by making open Warre against them by spoyling murthering imprisoning maiming sacking destroying or putting them out of their Protections without any just or lawfull grounds endeavouring by force of Armes to subvert their Lawes Liberties Religion and expose them as a prey to their mercilesse blood-thirsty Souldiers or bring in Forraigne Forces to conquer them our present case I dare confidently averre it was never the thought nor intention of Paul or the Holy Ghost much lesse of our Nobles Prelats and Commons in Parliament which enacted these Lawes who so oft tooke up Armes aswell offensive as defensive against our Kings in such like cases heretofore to inhibit Subjects Kingdomes Parliaments especially by direct Votes and Ordinances of both Houses under paine of damnation high Treason or Rebellion by defensive Armes to resist Kings themselves or any of their Cavalliers and if this question had beene put to Paul Peter or any of those Parliaments which enacted these objected Lawes Whether they ever meant by these Precepts or Statutes totally to prohibite all Subjects by generall assent in Parliament to take up such defensive Armes or make any forceable resistance against their Kings or their Armies in such cases of extremity and necessity as these under the foresaid penalties I make little question but they would have clearely resolved that it was never so much as within the compasse of their thoughts much lesse their plaine intention to prohibite such a resistance in this or such like cases but onely according to the precedent exposition of their words and that they never imagined to establish in the world any Vnresistable Lawlesse Tyranny or any such spoile or butchery of Kingdomes of Subjects execrable to God and man in all persons all ages which have resisted them even unto blood but rather totally to suppresse them There being scarce any more pregnant Text against the Tyranny the boundlesse Prerogatives the illegall proceedings of Kings and Higher Powers in all the Scripture then that of Romans 13. 1. to 7. if rightly scanned as Pareus and others on it manifest Therefore the Parliaments and peoples present defensive Warre and resistance against their seduced King and his Malignant Popish Cavalliers is no violation of any Law of God of the Realme but a just necessary Warre which they have to the uttermost endeavoured to prevent and no Treason no Rebellion at all within the meaning of any Law or Statute unlesse we should thinke our Parliaments so mad as to declare it high Treason or Rebellion even for the Parliament and Kingdome it selfe so much as to take up Armes for their owne necessary preservation to prevent their inevitable ruine when they are openly assaulted by Royall armies which none can ever presume they would doe being the very high way to their owne and the whole Kingdomes subversion Fiftly admit the King should bring in Forraigne forces French Spanish Danes Dutch or Irish to destroy or Conquer his Subjects Parliament Kingdome as some such forces are already landed and more expected dayly and should join himselfe personally with them in such a service I thinke there is no Divine Lawyer or true hearted Englishman so void of reason or common understanding as to affirme it Treason or Rebellion in point of Law and a matter of Damnation in Conscience or true Divinity for the Parliaments Subjects Kingdome to take up necessary defensive armes for their owne preservation in such a case even against the King himselfe and his army of Aliens but would rather deeme it a just honourable necessary action yea a duty for every English man to venture his life and all his fortunes for the defence of his owne dearest Native Countrey Posterity Liberty Religion and no lesse then a glorious Martyrdome to dye manfully in the Field in such a publicke quarrell the very Heathens generally resolving that Dulce decorum est pro Patria mori Et mortes pro Patria appetitae Non solum gloriosae Rhetoribus sed etiam beatae videri solent In a case of this quallitie Whence that noble Romane Camillus professed to all the Romanes in a publike Oration Patriae deesse quoad vita suppetat alijs turpe Camillo etiam NEFAS EST. And is not there the selfe same equity and reason when the King shall raise an Army of Popish English or Irish Rebels Malignants Delinquents and bring in Forraigners though yet in no great proporation to effect the like designe If armed forceable resistance be no Treason no Rebellion in Law or Conscience in the first it can be no such crime in our present
tilting blame themselves aloâ—e and have no other just legall remedie but patience it being neither Treason Rebellion nor Murther in the defensive party and most desperate folly and frenzie in any Prince to engage himselfe in such a danger when beneede not doe it I reade of Charles the first of France that he fell sodainely destracted upon a message he recâ—ived from an old poore man as he was marching in the head of his Army and thereupon thinking himselfe bâ—trayâ—d encountred his owne men and slew two or three of them ere they were ware of him woâ—nding others Whereupon they closing with him disâ—rmed and led him away foâ—ceably keeping him close shut up like à Bedlaâ— till he recovered his sensâ—s I thinke no man in his right wits will deeme this their action Treasonable or unlawfull neither did the king or any in that age thus repute it If then a King in an angry franticke passion for Ir. brevius furor est shall take up Armes against his loyall Subjects and assault their persons to murther them and spoyle their goods if they by common consent in Parliament especially shall forcibly resist disarme or restraine his person till his fury be appeased and his judgement rectified by better councells shall this be Treason Rebellion or Disloyaltie God forbid I thinke none but mad men can or will averte it It was a great doubt in Law till the statute of 33. H. 8. c. 20. setled it If a party that had committed any high Treasons when he was of perfect memory after accusation examination and confession thereof became madde or lunaticke whether he should bâ— tried and condemned for it during this distemper And some from that very act and 21. H. 7. 31. 36. Ass 27. 12. H. 3. For faiture 33 and Dower 183. Fitz. Nat. Br. 202. D. Stamford Pleas 16. b. and Cooke l. 4. f. 124. Beverlyes case which resolve â—hat a Lunaticke or Non Compos cannot be guilty of murtheâ— fel nâ—y â—â—petite Treason because having no understanding and knowing not what he doth he can â—ave nâ— follonius intention conceive that a reall mad-man cannot be guilty of high Treason though Sir Edward Cooke in Bevâ—rlies case be of a contrary opinion if he should assault or kill his king And I suppose few will deeme Walter Terrils casuall killing of King William Rufus with the glance of his arrow from a tree shot at a Deere high Treason neither was it then reputed so or he prosecuted as a Traytor for it because he had no malicious intention as most thinke against the King or any thought to hurt him But I conceive it out of question if a king in a distracted furious passion without just cause shall invade his subjects persons in an open hostile manner to destroy them it neither is nor can be Treason ner Rebellion in them if in their owne necessary defence alone they shall either casually wound or slay him contrary to their loyall intentions and those Statutes and Law-bookâ—s which judge it high Treason for any one maliciously and trayterously to imagine compasse or conspire the death of the King will not at all extend to such a case of meere just defence since a conspiracie or imagination to compasse or procure the Kings death can neither be justly imagined nor presumed in those who are but meerely defensive no more then in other common cases of one mans killing another in his owne inevitable defence without any precedent malice in which a Pardon by Law is granted of course however questionlesse it is no Treason nor murther at all to slay any of the kings souldiers and Cavaliers who are no kings in such a defensive warre Sixthly suppose the King should be captivated or violently led away by any forraign or domesticke enemies to him and the kingdome and carried along with them in the field to countenance their warres and invasions upon his loyallest Subjects by illegall warrants or Commissions fraudulently procured or extorted from him If the Parliament and Kingdome in such a case should raise an Army to rescue the King out of their hands and to that end encountring the enemies should casually wound the King whiles they out of loyalty sought onely to rescue him I would demaund of any Lawyer or Divine whether this Act should be deemed Treason Rebellion or Disloyalty in the Parliament or army Or which of the two Armies should in point of Law or Conscience be reputed Rebells or Traytors in this case those that come onely to rescue the King and so fight really for him indeed though against him in shew and wound him in the rescue Or those who in shew onely fought for him that they might still detaine him captive to their wills Doubtlesse there is no Lawyer nor Theologue but would presently resolve in such a case that the Parliaments Army which fought onely to rescue the King were the loyall Subjects and the Malignants army who held him captive with them the onely Rebels and traytors and that the casuall wounding of him proceeding not out of any malicious intention but love and loyalty to redeeme him from captivity were no trespasse nor offence at all being quite besides their thoughts and for a direct president It was the very case of King Henry the third who together with his sonne Prince Edward being taken Prisoner by the Earle of Leycester in the battle of Lewis and the Earle afterwards carrying him about in his Company in nature of a Prisoner to countenance his actions to the great discontent of the Prince the Earle of Glocester and other Nobles hereupon the Prince and they raising an Army encountred the Earle and his Porces in a battle at Eveshaâ— where the King was personally present slew the Earle Routed his Army and rescued the king in this cruell battell the king himselfe being wounded unawares with a Iavelin by those who rescued him was almost slaine and lost much of his blood yet in a Parliament soone after sommoned at Winchester Anno 1266. the Earle and his Army were dis-inherited as Traytors and Rebels but those who rescued them though with danger to his person rewarded as his loyall subjects And is not this the present case A company of malignant ill Councellors Delinquents Prelates Papists have withdrawne his Majestie from his Parliament raised an Army of Papists Forraigners Delinquents and Male-contents to ruin the Parliament Kingdome Religion Lawes Liberties to countenance this their designe they detaine his Majestie with them and engage him all they can on their side the Parliament out of no disloyall intention but onely to rescue his Majesties person out of their hands to apprehend delinquents preserve the Kingdome from spoyle and defend their Priviledges Persons Liberties estates religion from unjust invasions have raised a defensive Army which encountred these Forces at Edgehill where they say the King was present slew the Lord Generall Earle of Lindsey with many others and as they never intended so they
the honour of God the Salvation of the King for if the Kingdome perish or miscarry the king as king must needs perish with it the maintenance of his Crowne supported onely by the maintenance of the kingdomes welfare and the Salvation and common profit of all the Realm and this being one of the first solemne judgements if not the very first given in Parliament after the making of the statute of 25 E. 3. which hath relation to its clause of levying war must certainely be the best exposition of that Law which the Parliament onely ought to interpret as is evident by the statute of 21. R. 2. c. 3. It is ordained and stablished that every man which c. or he that raiseth the people and riseth against the King to make warre within his Realme and of that be duly attainted and judged in the Parliament shall be judged as a Traytor of High Treason against the Crowne and other forecited Acts and if this were no Treason nor Rebellion nor Trespasse in the Barons against the king or kingdome but a warre for the honour of God the salvation of the king the maintenance of his Crowne the safety and common profit of all the Realme much more must our Parliaments present defensive warre against his Majesties ill Councellors Papists Malignants Delinquents and men of desperate fortunes risen up in Armes against the Parliament Lawes Religion Liberties the whole Kingdomes peace and welfare be so too being backed with the very same and farre better greater authority and more publike reasons then their warre was in which the safety of Religion was no great ingredient nor the preservation of a Parliament from a forced dissolution though established and perpetuated by a publike Law King Henry the 4 th taking up Armes against King Richard and causing him to be Articled against and judicially deposed in and by Parliament for his Male-administration It was Enacted by the Statute of 1. Hen 4. cap. 2. That no Lord Spirituall nor Temporall nor other of what estate or condition that he be which came with King Henry into the Realme of England nor none other persons whatsoever they be then dwelling within the same Realme and which came to this King in aide of him to pursue them which were against the Kings good intent and the COMMON PROFIT OF THE REALME in which pursuit Richard late King of England the second after the Conquest was pursued taken and put in Ward and yet remaineth in Ward be impeached grieved nor vexed in person nor in goods in the Kings Court nor in none other Court for the pursuites of the said King taking and with-holding of his body nor for the pursuits of any other taking of persons and cattells or of the death of a man or any other thing done in the said pursuite from the day of the said King that now is arived till the day of the Coronation of Our said Soveraigne Lord Henry And the intent of the King is not that offendors which committed Trespasses or other offences out of the said pursuits without speciall warrant should be ayded nor have any advantage of this Statute but that they be thereof answerable at the Law If those then who in this offensive Warre assisted Henry the 4 th to apprehend and depose this persidious oppressing tyrannicall king seduced by evill Counsellors and his owne innate dis-affection to his naturall people deserved such an immunity of persons and goods from all kinds of penalties because though it tended to this ill kings deposition yet in their intentions it was really for the common profit of the Realme as this Act defines it No doubt this present defensive Warre alone against Papists Delinquents and evill Counsellors who have miserably wasted spoiled sacked many places of the Realme and fired others in a most barbarous maner contrary to the Law of Armes and Nations and labour to subvert Religion Laws Liberties Parliaments and make the Realm a common Prey without any ill intention against his Majesties Person or lawfull Royall Authority deserves a greater immunity and can in no reasonable mans judgement be interpreted any Treason or Rebellion against the king or his Crowne in Law or Conscience In the 33. yeare of king Henry the 6 th a weake Prince wholly guided by the Queene and Duke of Somerset who ruled all things at their wills under whose Government the greatest part of France was lost all things went to ruine both abroad and at home and the Queene much against the Lords and Peoples mindes preferring the Duke of Sommerset to the Captain ship of Calice the Commons and Nobility were greatly offended thereat saying That he had lost Normandy and so would he doâ— Calice Hereupon the Duke of Yorke the Earles of Warwicke and Salisbury with other their adherents raised an Army in the Marches of Wales and Marched with it towards London to suppresse the Duke of Sommerset with his Faction and reforme the Governement The king being credibly informed hereof assembled his Host and marching towards the Duke of Yorke and his Forces was encountred by them at Saint Albanes notwithstanding the kings Proclamation to keepe the Peace where in a set Battell the Duke of Somerset with divers Earles and 800. others were slaine on the kings part by the Duke of Yorke and his companions and the kingâ—â— a manner defeate The Duke after this Victory obtained remembring that he had oftentimes declared and published abroad The onely cause of this War to be THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE PUBLIKE WEALE and TO SET THE REALME IN A MORE COMMODIOVS STATE and BETTER CONDITION Vsing all lenity mercy and bounteousnesse would not once touch or apprehend the body of King Henry whom he might have slaine and utterly destroyed considering that hee had him in his Ward and Governance but with great honour and due reverence conveyed him to London and so to Westminster where a Parliament being summoned and assembled soone after It was therein Enacted That no person should either judge or report any point of untruth of the Duke of Yorke the Earles of Salisbury and Warwicke For comming in Warlike manner against the King at Saint Albanes Considering that their attempt and enterprise Was onely to see the Kings Person in Safeguard and Sure-keeping and to put and Alien from Him the publike Oppressors of the Common wealth by whose misgovernance his life might be in hazard and his Authority hang on a very small Thred After this the Duke and these Earles raised another Army for like purpose and their owne defence in the 37 and 38 yeares of H. 6. for which they were afterwards by a packed Parliament at Coventree by their Enemies procurement Attainted of high Treason and their Lands and Goods confiscated But in the Parliament of 39. H. 6. cap. 1. The said attainder Parliament with all Acts and Statutes therein made were wholly Reversed Repealed annulled as being made â—y the excitation and procurement of seditious ill disposed Persons for the
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
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
prohibiting but allowing it and these Fathers producing no one text which truly condemnes it this being the very summe of their words That though 〈◊〉 Christians were exceeding many in number of strength and power abundantly sufficient to defend themselves in a warlike manner against their persecuters and had full liberty and no restraint upon them in point of Conscience either to withstand their persecutors with Armes or to withdraw themselves from under the jurisdiction of their persecuters into remote parts to the great weakning and losse of the State yet such was their patience innocency and desire of Martyrdome that they resisted not their Adversaries with force nor retired nor fled away from under their obedience but cheerfully without the least resistance by word deed or thought yeelded up their Bodies Liberties Lives to the cruelties of their Enemies to obtaine that Crowne of Martyrdome which they desired and to offer up themselves a voluntary freewill oblation to the Lord who would certainly avenge all their wrongs This is the sum of all these Authorities which evidence resistance lawfull in it selfe and to these Christians too in their owne judgements and resolutions though the desire of Martyrdome made them freely to forbeare it These Examples and Authorities therefore abundantly corroborate and no wayes impeach our cause Thirdly their examples of not resisting Persecuters being rather voluntary then enjoyned out of a longing desire to be Martyrs and an assurance of divine vengeance to be executed on their Persecuters is no restraint nor ground at all for other Christians now not to use any forcible resistance it being a grosse inconsequent to argue The Primitive Christians voluntarily refused to defend themselves with force of Armes against their Persecuters though they were not bound in point of Conscience from such resistance and had both liberty and power to resist Ergo Christians in point of Conscience ought not to make any forcible resistance against oppressing Lords and Persecuters now For then this their voluntary choice and election should deprive all following Christians of that ability of defence which both themselves then had and since enjoy by Gods and Natures Law Yet this is all the argument which can be ingeniously framed from these Authorities and Examples the absurdity whereof I shall thus further illustrate from like Precedents We know first That the primitive Christians out of a desire of martyrdome not only refused to resist but to flee away from their Persecuters when they might safely doe it some of them holding it unlawfull and dishonourable to flee in such a case by name Tertullian in his booke De fuga in persecutione Will our Opposites from hence inferre Ergo it is unlawfull for Christians not onely to resist but even to flee from their Persecuters or his Majesties murdering plundering Forces Or for them selves to flee not onely from the Parliaments Forces but Justice too as many of them have done yea made escapes against Law to flee therefrom If the Christians not fleeing binde neither them nor us not to flee now why should their not resisting onely doe it Secondly The Primitive Christians ran to the stake of martyrdome when they were neither accused cited persecuted by any freely confessing themselves Christians and rather desiring presently to die Martyrs then live Christians and reputing is worse then death not to be admitted to or delaied the honour of being Martyrs of which we have infinite Presidents in Ecclesiasticall Histories commonly known and over-tedious to recite I shall onely instance in Julian the Apostates Christian Souldiers who being over-reached by him under colour of a largesse to throw some Frankincense into a fire secretly kindled by the Emperour in honour of an Idol they dreaming of no such thing and doing it onely as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plementall Ceremonie as soon as they heard how the Emperour had over-reached them and given out speeches that they had sacrificed to his Idol presently rising from the feast prepared for them in a fury inflamed with zeale and wrath ran through the Market place and cried out openly Wee are Christians Wee are Christians in minde let all men heare it and above all God to whom we both live and will also die O Christ our Saviour we have not broken our faith plighted to thee If our hand hath any way offended verily our minde followed it not at all we are circumvented by the Emperours fraud with whose gold we are wounded We have put off impiety we are purged by blood After which posting speedily to the Emperour and casting away their gold with a generous and strenuous minde they exclaimed against him in this manner O Emperour we have not received gifts but are damned with death We are not called for our honour but branded with ignominie Give this benefit to thy Souldiers kill and behead us unto Christ to whose Empire onely we are subject Recompence fire for fire for those ashes reduce us into ashes Cut off the hands which we have wickedly stretched out the feet wherewith we have perniciously run together Give gold to others who will not afterwards repent they have received it Christ is enough and more then sufficient unto us whom we account in stead of all The Emperour enraged with this speech refused to slay them openly lest they should bee made Martyrs who as much as in them lay were Martyrs but onely banished them revenging this their contempt with that punishment Will it then follow from these memorable examples That all true Christians now in England and Ireland must come thus and offer themselves voluntarily to the Popish Rebels and Forces now in Arms to extirpate the Protestant Religion in both Kingdoms or that the Members of both Houses must go speedily to Oxford to the King and his evill Counsellors and there let them kill hang burne quarter slay execute torture them subvert Religion Laws Liberties Parliaments without the least resistance Or will our Opposites hence conclude as they may with better Judgement and Conscience doe Ergo all such persons voted Traitors and Delinquents in any kinde by both Houses of Parliament ought now in point of Conscience to avoid the effusion of blood and ruine of the Realm through the civill warres they have occasioned to lay down their Arms and voluntarily resigne up themselves to the impartiall Justice of the Parliament without any the least resistance for the future If no such Doctrinall or Practicall conclusions may be drawne from these their Precedents of voluntary seeking and rendring themselves up to the Martyrdome of their Opposites then the unlawfulnesse of resisting cannot be inferred from this their non-resisting Thirdly how many cowardly Souldiers in all ages and in this too have voluntarily yeelded up Forts Castles Ships Armes Persons to their invading approaching enemies without fight or resistance How many persons have resigned up their Purses to high-way theeves their Lands to disseisors their Houses Goods to riotors their Ships Estates Persons to Turkish and other Pirats
rabble if made had been onely singly for defence of their Religion then practised but in corners publikely condemned no where tolerated Our present war is not onely for defence of our Religion established by Law and to keep out Popery but for the preservation of Laws Liberties the very essence of Parliaments the safety of the Realme and that by authority of Parliament the representative body of the Realme The Parliaments defensive warre therefore upon these politicke grounds is just and lawfull though the Primitive Christians perchance in defence of Religion onely as its case then stood would not have been so even as the Roman Senators and States resisting of Nero or any other Tyrannicall Emperors violations of the Laws Liberties Lives Estates of the Senate people were then reputed just and lawfull though the Christians defence of Religion would not have been so esteemed in those times And thus I hope I have satisfactorily answered this objection without shifts or evasions and rectified these mistaken Fathers meanings with which our Opposites have seduced the illiterate over-credulous vulgar I have now through Gods assistance quite run through all Obiections of moment from Scripture Reason Fathers against the lawfulnesse of the Parliaments present defensive war and discovered divers grosse errors yea Impostures in our Opposites writings wherewith they have perverted many mens Consciences and cheated the ignorant seduced world I shall therefore here advise them in the presence of Almighty God as they will answer the contrary before his Tribunall at the Day of Iudgement seriously to consider these my answers and publikely to retract those their Errors false grosse mis-interpretations perversions of Scriptures Authors which I have here discovered And since they pretend nothing but their satisfying and keeping of a good Conscience in by others concerned in this Controversie to shew a syncere ingenuous Conscience therein themselves where they have been mistaken since the contestation pretended is not for Victory Time-serving or Self-seeking but for Truth Gods glory and the publike weal and if I have over-shot my self in any thing I shall promise them a thankfull acknowledgement and ready palinedy upon their information and conviction of any apparent oversights I may casually fall into Now because they shall not deem me singular in my opinion concerning the lawfulnesse of subjects defensive Arms against their Soveraigns bent to subvert Religion Laws Liberties the Republike or deem it is a late upstart Novelty I shall conclude this discourse with such personall naturall and publike authorities as they shall not be able to balance with counter-resolutions in which I shall be as brief as I may be For personall Authorities I shall not be ambitious to remember many especially Papists whose common constant received opinion and practise hath alwayes been and yet is That Subjects upon the Popes command alone and absolution of them from their Soveraigns allegiance may and ought to take up even offensive Arms against their owne naturall Princes excommunicated interdicted deposed or onely declared contumacious Schismâ—ticall or Hereticall by the Pope without yea against their Kingdoms Parliaments privities or consents much more then with their approbation What Papists have determined and practised in this very point you may read at large in Gratiau himself Causa 15. Quaest 6. and Causa 23. in the very Oath of Supremacie and Statut. of 3. Iacobi ch 4. which prescribes it in Bishop Iewels view of a seditious Bull in Doctor Iohn White his Defence of the way Chap. 6. 10. in Abbas Vspergensis Sabellicus Valateranus Grimston and others in the Lives of the Roman and German Emperours in Aventinchis Annalium Boyorum the Generall and Particular Histories of France Spain Germany Italy Sicily Hungary England in Bishp Bilsons third part of the True Difference between Christian Subjection and unchristian Rebellion In sundry Sermons on the fift of November to which I shall refer you In Pope Paschal his letter to Robert Earl of Flanders about the year of our Lord 1107. exorting him to war against those of Leige Henry the Emperour and his Assistants wheresoever he should finde them excommunicated and deposed as an Heretike and enemy to the Church telling him that he could not offer a more gratefull sacrifice to God then to ware against them concluding Hoc tibi Militibus this in peccatorum remissionem Apostolicae sedis familiaritatem praecipimus ut his laboribus triumphis ad Coelestem Hierusalem Domino praestante pervenias Which Letter was excellently answered by those of Leige And in the Councel of Towres in France under Lewes the twelfth Anno 1510. it was unanimously resolved by the Church of France That if the Pope did make war upon temporall Princes in lands which they held not of the patrimony of the Church they might lawfully by force of Arms resist and defend both themselves and other not only repulse this injury but likewise invade the lands of the Church possessed by the Pope their notorious enemy not perpetually to retain but to hinder the Pope from becomming more strong and potent by them to offend both them and theirs And that it was lawfull for such Princes for such notorious hatred and unjust invasion to withdraw themselves from the Popes obedience and with armed force to resist all censures denounced by the Pope against them their subjects and Confederates and that such sentences ought not to be obeyed but are mear nullities in law which obliege no man Yet I must inform you further in brief that Iohn Maior a Popish Schoolman in Lib. 4. Sentent as Grotius writes affirms That the people cannot deprive themselves of the power not onely of resisting but deposing Kings in cases which directly tend to their destruction and that Iohn Barclay a late Scottish Priest though a strenuous defendor of Princes Prerogatives expresly averres That if a King will altenate and subiect his Kingdom to another without his subiects consents or be carried with atrue hostile minde to the destruction of all his people that his Kingdom is thereby actually lost and forfeited so as the people may not onely absolutely resist and disobey but depose him and elect another King to which Hugo Gortius a Protestant freely subscribes and Iohn Bodin alloweth of Subjects resistance yea deposing kings insome Kingdoms absolutely and in some cases gener allyin all De Repub. l. 1. c. 10. l. 1. c. 5 l. 5. c. 5. 6. For Protestant personall authorities we have Huldericus Zuinglius Explanatio Articuli 40 41 42 43. Tom. 1. fol. 82. to 86. who allows not only Subiects actuall resistance but deprivation of Kings Where Princes set themselves to subvert Religion Laws Liberties and that by the common consent of the States in Parliament from whom Kings originally receive their Royall power and authority Martin Luther Bugenhagius Iustus Ionas Ambsdorfius Spaelotinus Melancthon Cruciger and other Divines Lawyers Statesmen Anno 1531. who published a writing in justification of
would favour and bring to a good end SO HOLY AND NECESSARY AN ENTERPRIZE This their defensive Warre yet continuing hath been justified by many and in speciall maintained to be just and honorable BOTH IN LAW AND CONSCIENCE in a particular Book De jure Belli Belgici printed at the Hague with the States approbation 1599. to which I shall referre you Fifthly which comes neerest to our present case of any story I have met with Alphonso the 3. king of Arragon in the year 1286. through the ill advise of some bad Counsellors and Courtiers about him departed in discontent from the Parliament of the Estates of Arragon then assembled at Saragossa and posted to Osca because the Parliaments took upon them to make Lawes to reforme and order his Court his Courtiers which he denyed but they affirmed they had just right and power to doe Hereupon the businesse being put unto greater difficulty the Estates affirmed A Comitiis intempestive discedere Regi NEFAS ESSE That IT WAS A WICKED ACT FOR THE KING THVS VNSEASONABLY TO DEPART FROM THE PARLIAMENT NEITHER WAS SO GREAT A BREACH OF THEIR PRIVILEDGES AND RIGHTS TO BE PATIENTLY ENDVRED Whereupon they presently raised up the Name and FORCES OF THE VNION or Association formerly made and entred into between the Nobility Cities and people mutually to aid and assist one another to preserve the Peace and Liberties of the Realm even with force of Armes IT BEING LAWFVLL for the common cause of Liberty Non Verbis solum SED ARMIS QVOQVE CONTENDERE not onely TO CONTEND with words BVT ALSO WITH ARMES Vpon this king Alphonso desirous to prevent the mischiefs them present and incumbent by advise of his Privy Counsell published certaine good Edicts at Osca for regulating his Court Counsell Iudges Officers by which he thought to have ended all this Controversie but because they were promulged onely by the Kings own Edict not by the whole Parliament as binding Lawes they still proceeded in the Vnion till at last after various events of things this King returning to the Generall Assembly and Parliament of the Estates at Saragossa in the year 1287 condessended to their desires and confirmed the two memorable priviledges of the Vnion with the Soveraign power of the Iustice of Aragon which could controll their very Kings Of which see more in the Appendix I shall close up this of the lawfulnesse of a necessary defensive warre with the speech of the Emperour Alexander Seuerus recorded by Herodian l. 5. He who first infers injuries hath no probable colour but he that repulseth those who are troublesome to him EX BONA CONSCENTIA sumit fiduciam assumes confidence FROM A GOOD CONSCIENCE and good hope of successe is present with him from hence that he offers not injury but removes it Thus have I now at last waded thorow this weighty controversie of the lawfulnesse both in point of Law and Conscience of the Parliaments present and all other subjects necessary Defensive Warres against their Soveraigns who invade their lawes liberties Religion Government to subvert them by open force of Armes in which I have freely and impartially discharged my conscience not out of any turbulent seditious or disloyall intention to forment or perpetuate the present or raise any future destructive unnaturall warres between king Parliament and People or to countenance to encourage any tumultuous rebellious factious ambitious traiterous spirits to mutiny or rebell against their Soveraigns for private injuries or upon any false unwarrantable ends or pretences whatsoever let Gods curse and mens for ever rest upon all those who are in love with any warre especially a Civill within their own dearest Countries bowels or dare abuse my loyall sincere Lucubrations to any disloyall sinister designes to the prejudice of their Soveraignes or the States wherein they live but only out of a cordiall desire to effect such a speedy honourable safe religious semplternall peace between king and Parliament as all true Christian English hearts both cordially pray long for and endeavour by informing his seduced Majesty his evill Counsellors his Popish Malignant Forces that if they will still proceed unnaturally and treacherously to make war against their Native Countrey Religion Lawes Liberties and the Parliament which to doe I have elsewhere manifested to be no lesse then high Treason Rebellion against both King and Kingdome they may in point of conscience and Law too be justly opposed resisted repulsed even by force of Armes without any guilt of Treason Rebellion or feare of temporall or eternall condemnation as publike Enemies Rebels Traytors to the Realm whatevever they have hitherto been informed of to the contrary by temporizing Lawyers or flattering illiterate Court Divines and by assuring all such noble generous publike spirits who shall willingly adventure their lives or fortunes by the Parliaments command in the present necessary defensive warre for the ends premised that for this good service they shall neither in the Courts of Law nor Conscience incurre the least stain or guilt of Treason Rebellion sedition or any such like odious crime much lesse eternall condemnation the panick feare whereof frequently denounced against them by many sottish Malignants Royalists ill-instructed Lawyers and Theologasters hath frighted kept back and withdrawn multitudes from yea cooled corrupted many in this honourable publike duty service which they now owe of Right to God and their Countrey in which to be treacherous perfidious sloathfull negligent cold uncordiall or timerous as too many hitherto have been to the greater honour of those who haue been faithfull actiue Valiant and sincere especially now after so many late horrid treacheries most happily discouered and a new Couenant solemnly entred into demerits a perpetuall brand of infamy and reproach To dye fighting for ones dearest bleeding dying Countrey hath in all ages been honoured with a Crown of Martyrdome to liue or dye fighting against it hath ever deserved the most capitall censures ignominies and heaviest execrations Let both sides therefore now seriously ponder and lay all the premises close to their soules consciences and then I doubt not through Gods blessing but a happy peace will speedily thereon ensue Nation shall not lift up sword against Nation Countrey against Countrey Englishman against Englishman Brother against brother any more as now they doe neither shall they learn such an unnaturaall cursed kind of Civill Warre any more but beat their swords into Plow-shares and their speares into pruning hooks and greet one another with a kisse of holy peace and charity Which desired end and issue of these present bloudy warres God in his mercy hasten and accomplish to the joy of all our Soules I should now according to former engagements proceed to other remaining particulars but because this part hath already farre exceeded its intended bounds out of a desire to give full satisfaction in a point of highest present and future concernment every way I shall reserve the residue with the Appendix for another
Barbarous Inhumanity for any person not to put to his uttermost strength speedily to close up the mortall wounds of his bleeding dying Native Country but to protract its cure to enlarge encrease its deadly Ulcers Stabs Sores and make a lasting trade of Warre out of a sordid sinfull desire of Gaine of Plunder to raise a private fortune by the Republicks ruines a sinne of which some perchance are guilty is an unparalleld most unnaturall prodigious Impiety It was thought a great dishonour heretofore for men of Honour and Estates not to serve and defend their Country gratis as our own Lawbooks Histories plentifully manifest and shall such Persons now turne sordid Mercenaries stirre neither hand nor foot without their Pay and be more diligent to get their wages than discharge their Service God forbid It is Recorded of the Children of Gad and Reuben after they had recovered their inheritance on this side Jordan that they went all up armed before the Lord over Jordan at their owne free cost untill they had driven out all the enemies in it before them subdued the Land and setled their brethren of the other Tribes peaceably in it And shall not Englishmen of Estates doe the like for their Brethren now in these times of need when money the sinewes of Warre is almost quite shrunke up by reason of former Disbursements and want of Trade We read That the very Heathen Kings of Canaan when they came and fought in Taanach by the waters of Megiddo against the Israelites THEY TOOKE NO GAINE OF MONEY for their paines Such was their Noble-generosity which Deborah registers in her Song for their eternall Glory And we heare of divers Lords and Gentlemen in the Kings Army which serve against their Country gratis yea furnish out sundry Horse and Foote of their proper cost of few or none such there who receive any Pay And shall these be more free generous active in serving fighting against God Religion Lawes Liberties Parliament and their Country than those of like Ranke and quality on the Parliaments party are in warring for them O let not such anignoble unchristian Report be ever once justly told in Gath or published in the streets of Askelon lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoyce lest the sonnes and daughters of the uncircumcised triumph I know there are some Heroicke Worthies in the Parliaments Armies of whom I may truely sing with Deborah My heart is toward the Governours of Israel that offered themselves willingly among the people and who like Zebulon and Nepthali have freely jeoparded their lives unto the death in the high places of the field Blessed be their Endeavours and their Names for ever Honourable I shall now onely wish that others would imitate their laudable examples that so our long-lingring warres may be speedily and happily determined in a blessed pure pious secure honourable lasting Peace They are Tormentors not Chirurgions Executioners not true Souldiers who desire endeavour not speedily to close up and heale their dearest Countries bleeding festring wounds for which I have prepared this Treatise as a Soveraigne Balme to incarne and cicatrize them not ulcerate or inflame them It was the Prophets Patheticke expostulation The harvest is past the Summer is ended and we are not healed Is there no balme in Gilead Is there no Physitian there why then is not the health of the Daughter of my people recovered It may be Englands and Irelands expostulation now The Lord put it into the hearts of our great Physitians the King Parliament and Grandees of both Armies that they may now at last with bleeding melting hearts and spirits speedily poure forth such effectuall healing Balmes into these two dying Kingdomes deadly wounds as may effectually cure and restore them to more perfect health and vigor than they ever formerly enjoyed that so they may lose nothing but their putrid blood their proud dead flesh their filthy sanies and corrupt humours by their unnaturall stabs already received Towards the advancement of which much desired cure if these my undigested rude Collections interrupted with sundry inevitable interloping Distractions which may justly excuse their many defects may adde any contribution or satisfie any seduced or scrupulous Consciences touching this present Warre I shall deeme my labours highly recompensed And so recommending them to Gods blessing and thy charitable acceptation I shall detaine thee with no further Prologue Farewell THE SOVERAIGNE POVVER OF PARLIAMENTS KINGDOMES PROVING I st That the Parliaments present necessary Defensive Warre is Iust and Lawfull both in point of Law and Conscience and no Treason nor Rebellion HAving in the two former Parts of this Discourse dissipated foure chiefe Complaints against the Parliaments proceedings I come now in order in point of time and sequell to the 5 th Grand Objection of the King Royalists and Papists against the Parliament To wit That they have traiterously taken up Armes and levied warre against the King himselfe in his Kingdome and would have taken away his life at Keinton battell which is no lesse than Rebellion and High Treason by the Statute of 25. E. 3. c. 2. with other obsolete Acts and by the Common Law Which Obiection though last in time is yet of greatest weight and difficulty now most cryed up and insisted on of all the rest in many of his Majesties late Proclamations Declarations and in Anti-Parliamentary Pamphlets To give a punctuall Answere to this capitall Complaint not out of any desire to foment but cease this most unnaturall bloody warre which threatens utter desolation to us if proceeded in or not determined with a just honourable secure lasting peace now lately rejected by his Majesties party I say First that it is apparent to all the world who are not willfully or maliciously blinded That this Majesty first began this warre not onely by his endeavors to bring up the Northerne Army to force the Parliament confessed by the flight letters examinations of those who were chiefe Actors in it but by raising sundry forces under colour of a guard before the Parliament levied any Secondly that the Parliament in raising their forces had no intention at all to offer the least violence to his Majesties person Crowne dignity nor to draw any English blood but onely to defend themselves and the Kingdome against his Majesties Malignant invasive plundring Forces to rescue his Majestie out of the hands the power of those ill Councellers and Malignants who withdrew him from his Parliament to bring him backe with honour peace safety to his great Councell their Generall and Army Marching with a Petition to this purpose and to bring those Delinquents to condigne punishment who most contemptuously deserted the Houses contrary to Order Law the Priviledges of Parliament their owne Protestation taken in both Houses sheltring themselves under the power of his Majesties presence and Forces from the justice of the Houses and apprehension of their Officers contrary to
Therefore certainely it must needs bee lawfull being Gods and Natures speciall Ordinance to secure innocent persons Cities Nations Kingdomes Lawes Liberties Lives Estates Religion and mankinde it selfe against the hurtfull Lusts of unnaturall Tyrants and their accursed instruments against ambitious treacherous male-contented Spirits maliciously bent against the publicke weale and peace There are two things onely which usually restraine inferiour persons from murthering robbing disseising injuring one another the one is feare of punishment by the Magistrate the other feare and danger of being resisted repulsed with shame and losse of limbe or life by those they violently assault injure and were this once beleeved received for Law or Divinity in the world that it were unlawful to resist repulse a theefe murtherer riotor or disseisor comming in the Kings name long enjoy his life goods liberty lands but some or other would deprive him of them notwithstanding all restraints of Lawes of penalties and maintaine suites against him with his owne estate violently seised on the right of lawfull defence being every mans best security to preserve his life estate in peace against the violence of another whence the wisdom of the Common Law makes every mans house his Castle in the necessary defence wherof and of his person goods from the violence rape of others it gives him libertie to beate repulse yea kill injurious assailants which right of defence if once denyed would open a wide gap to all wickednesse injustice disorders whatsoever and speedily bring in absolute confusion subversion of all property Law Order As for Emperors Kings great Officers and other ungodly instruments armed with Princes unjust commissions who deeme themselves above the reach of humane Lawes censures and accountable for their unjust actions to none but God himselfe there is no other knowne barre or obstacle to hinder or restraine their armed violence Tyrannie oppressions but onely the feare of the oppressed assaulted subjects armed resistance which if once denyed to be lawfull all Royalties would soone be transformed into professed Tyrannies all Kings Magistrates into Tyrants all Liberty into slavery property into communitie and every one would thereby be exposed as a voluntary prey to the arbitrary cruelty covetousnesse avarice lusts of the greatest men Therefore doubtlesse this armed resistance cannot but be lawfull necessary just in point of Law and Conscience to eschew these generall mischiefes Sixtly all will readily grant it lawfull in case of Conscience for subjects to resist a forraigne enemie which invades them with force of Armes though animated by the King himselfe to such invasion and why so but because they are their enemies who would wrongfully deprive them of their native inheritance Liberties estates and worke them harme upon which ground we read in the 2 Kings 3. 21. That when the Moabites heard that the Kings of Israel Judah and Edom came up to fight against them with a great Army they gathered all that were able to put on armour and upward to withstand them and stood in the border and when ever the Midianites Philisâ—ines Syrians Babylonians AEgyptians Cananites or other enemies came to assault the Jsraelites they presently assembled together in Armes to encounter and repulse them as the Histories of Joshua Judges Samuel the Kings Chronicles and Nehemiah abundantly evidence almost in every Chapter If then Subjects may with a good Conscience resist forragin enemies on this ground alone then likewise domestick foes and their Kings own Forces when they become open enemies to rob kill plunder destroy them as inhumanely as injuriously as the worst Forraigne foes there being the selfe same ground for the lawfulnesse of resistance of the one as the other and if the ballance encline to one side more than other an intestine enemie being more unnaturall unjust hurtfull dangerous and transgressing more Lawes of the Realme which obliege not strangers than a Forraigner and a Civill warre being far worse and more destructive than a Forraigne the resistance of an homebred enemy must be the more just and lawfull of the two even in point of Conscience Seventhly The very Law of God both alloweth and commands all men to resist their spirituall enemies with spirituall Armes Jam 4. 7. Resist the Devill and he will flee from you otherwise he would easily subdue and destroy us 1 Pet. 5. 8. 9. Be sober and vigilant because your adversarie the devill as a rearing Lyon walketh about seeking whom he may devoure whom resist stedfast in the faith Ephes 5. 10 to 19. Finally my brethren be strong in the Lord and in the power of his might Put on the whole Armour of God that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devill For we wrestle or warre not against flesh and blood but against Principalities against powers against the Rulers of the darknesse of this world against Spirituall wickednesse or wicked spirits in high places Wherefore take unto you the whole Armour of God that ye may be able to withstand in the evill day and having done all to stand Stand therefore having your loynes girded about with truth c. Above all taking the sheild of faith wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked And take the helmes of Salvation and the sword of the spirit which is the Word of God Praying alwayes with all prayer and supplication Hence Christians are termed Souldiers of Iesus Christ and Christianity a warfare against the world the flesh and Prince of the world the Devill 2 Tim. 2. 3 4. 2 Cor. 10. 3. 1 Tim. 1. 18. Iam. 41. 1 Pet. 2. 11. Rom. 7. 23. 2 Cor. 10. 4. 1 Cor. 9 7 I say 41. 2. Rev. 12. 7. 17. In which warfare we must fight and resist even unto blood striving against sinne Heb. 12. 4. Vsing not onely prayers and teares but other spirituall weapons of warre mighty through God able to cast downe every high thing that exalteth it selfe to bring into Captivitie every thought to the obedience of Christ and to revenge all disobedience 2 Cor. 10. 4. 5. 6. If then we may and must manfully resist and fight against our Spirituall enemies though Principalities Powers Rulers wicked spirits in high Places and the Prince of this world himself the Devill when they assaut and seeke to devoure our soules then by the selfesame reason we lawfully with a safe conscience may yea ought to resist repulse our corporall enemies when they maliciously unjustly forcibly assault us against all rules of Law of Conscience to murther enslave destroy our bodies Soules Religion the Republicke which must be dearest to us though they be Principalities Powers Rulers wicked Spirits in high Places yea Princes of this world with all their under Officers and Instruments of cruelty not onely with prayers and teares but corporall Armes and force because they unnaturally tyrannically seeke the destruction of our bodies estates Liberties Republicke Religion there being no inhibition in Scripture not to resist the one or other but infinite
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 or
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
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
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
had delegated to Moses and Aaron without any injury or injustice at all once offered to them or any assault upon them Ergo marke the Non-sence of this argumentation no Subjects may lawfully take up meere necessary defensive Armes in any case to resist the bloody Tyrannie Oppression and outrages of wicked Princes or their Cavalleires when they make warre upon them to destroy or enslave them An Argument much like this in substance No man ought to rise up against an honest Officer or Captaine in the due execution of his Office when he offers him no injury at all Therefore he ought not in conscience to resist him when he turnes a theefe or murtherer and felloniously assaults him to rob him of his purse or cut his throate Or private men must not causelesly mutinie against a lawfull Magistrate for doing justice and performing his duty Ergo the whole Kingdome in Parliament may not in Conscience resist the Kings Captaines and Cavalleeres when they most unnaturally and impiously assault them to take away their Lives Liberties Priviledges Estates Religion oppose and resist justice and bring the whole Kingdome to utter desolation The very recitall of this argument is an ample satisfactory refutation of it with this addition These seditious Levites Rebelled against Moses and Aaron onely because God himselfe had restrained them from medling with the Priests Office which they would contemptuously usurpe and therefore were most severely punished by God himself against whose expresse Ordinance they Rebelled Ergo the Parliament and Kingdome may in no case whatsoever though the King be bent to subvert Gods Ordinances Religion Lawes Liberties make the least resistance against the king or his invading forces under paine of Rebellion High Treason and eternall condemnation This is Doctor Fernes and some others Bedlam Logicke Divinity The next is this Thou shalt not revile the Gods nor curse the Ruler of thy people Ex. 22. 28. Eccl. 10. 20. Curse not the King no not in thy thought and curse not the rich in thy bed-Chamber which is well explained by Prov. 17. 26. It is not good to strike Princes for equitie Ergo it is unlawfull for the Subjects to defend themselves against the Kings Popish depopulating Cavaleers I answer the first text pertaines properly to Judges and other sorts of Rulers not to Kings not then in being among the Israelites the second to rich men as well as Kings They may as well argue then from these texts that no Iudges nor under-rulers nor rich men whatsoever though never so unjust or wicked may or ought in conscience to be resisted in their unjust assaults Riots Robberies no though they be bent to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties as that the King and his Souldiers joyntly or severally considered may not be resisted yea these acute disputants may argue further by this new kinde of Logicke Christians are expresly prohibited to curse or revile any man whatsoever under paine of damnation Rom. 12. 14. Mat. 5. 44. Levit. 19 14. Numb 23. 7. 8. 2 Sam. 16. 9. Levit. 20. 9. c. 24 P 1. 14. 23. Levit. 20. 9. Prov. 20. 20. 1 Cor. 6. 10 1 Cor. 4. 12. 1 Pet. 2. 23. Jude 9. Ergo we ought to resist no man whatsoever no not a theefe that would rob us cut-throate Cavaleers that would murther us lechers that would ravish us under paine of damnation What pious profitable Doctrine thinke you is this All cursings and railings are simply unlawfull in themselves all resistance is not so especially that necessary we now discourse of against unlawfull violence to ruine Church and State To argue therefore all resistance is simply unlawfull because cursing and reviling of a different nature are so is ill Logicke and worse Divinity If the objectors will limit their resistance to make the Argument sensible and propose it thus All cursing and reviling of Kings and Rulers for executing justice impartially for so is the chiefe intendment of the place objected delinquents being apt to clamour against those who justly censure them is unlawfull Ergo the forcible resisting of them in the execution of justice and their lawfull authority is unlawfull the sequell I shall grant but the Argument will be wholy impertinent which I leave to the Objectors to refine The third Argument is this That which peculiarly belongs to God no man without his speciall authority ought to meddle with But taking up Armes peculiarly belongeth to he Lord. Deut 32. 35. Where the Lord saith vengeance is mine especially the sword which of all temporall vengeance is the greatest The Objector puts no Ergo or conclusion to it because it concludes nothing at all to purpose but onely this Ergo The King and Cavalleeres must lay downe their Armes and swords because God never gave them any speciall commission to take them up Or Ergo no man but God must weare a sword at least of revenge and â—hether the kings and Cavalleers Offensive or the Parliaments meere Defensive sword be the sword of vengeance and malice let the world determine to the Objectors shame The fourth is from Eccles 8. 2. 3. 4. I councell thee to keepe the Kings Commandment and that in regard of the Oath of God Be not hasty to goe out of his sight stand not in an evill thing for he doth whatsoever pleaseth him where the word of a king is there is power and who may say unto him what dost thou This Text administers the Opposites a double Argument The first is this All the Kings Commands are to be kept of all his Subjects by vertue of the Oathes of supremacy alleigance and the late protestation including them both Ergo by vertue of these Oathes we must not resist his Cavalleeres but yeeld our thoates to their swords our purses and estates to their rapines our chastities to their Lecheries our Liberties to their Tyrannies our Lawes to their lusts our Religion to their Popish Superstition and Blasphemies without any opposition because the king hath oft commanded us not to resist them But seeing the Oath and Law of God and those oathes of ours obleige us onely to obey the Kings just legall commands and no other not the Commands and lusts of evill Councellors and Souldiers this first Argument must be better pointed ere it will wound our cause The second this The king may lawfully do whatsoever pleaseth him Ergo neither are He or his Forces to be resisted To which I answer that this verse relates onely unto God the next antecedent who onely doth and may doe what he pleaseth and that both in heaven and earth Psal 135. 6. Psal 115. 3 Esay 46. 10. not to Kings who neither may nor can doe what they please in either being bound both by the Laws of God man and their Coronation Oathes perchance the oath of God here meant rather then that of supremacie or alleigance to doe onely what is lawfull and just not what themselves shall please But admit it
meant of Kings not God First the text saith not that a king may lawfully doe what he pleaseth but he doth whatsoever pleaseth him Solomâ—n himselfe committed idolatry built Temples for Idolatrous worship served his idolatrous wives Gods married with many idolatrous wives greivously oppressed his people c. for which God threatned to rent the kingdome from himself as he did the ten Tribes from his son for those sinnes of his David committed adultery and wilfully numbred the people and what King Jeroboam Manasseh Ahab other wicked Kings have done out of the pleasure and freedome of their lawlesse wills to the infinite dishonour of God the ruine of themselves their posterities Kingdomes is sufficiently apparent in Scripture was all therefore just lawfull unblameable because they did herein whatsoever they pleased not what was pleasing to God If not as all must grant then your foundation failes that Kings may lawfully doe whatsoever they will and Solomons words must be taken all together not by fragments and these latter words coupled with the next preceeding Stand not in an evill matter and then Pauls words will well interpret his Rom. 13. 4. But if thou doe that which is evill be afraid for he beareth not the sword in vaine for he is the minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon them that doe evill So that the genuine sence of the place is and must be this Stand not in an evill matter for the king path an absolute power to doe whatsoever he pleaseth in way of justice to punish thee if thou continue obstinate in thy evill courses to pardon thee if thou confesse submit and crave pardon for them Ergo the king and his Cavalleeres have an absolute power to murther plunder destroy his Subjects subvert Religion and he and his Forces must not herein be resisted is an ill consequent from such good premises The third is this Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him what dost thou that is expostulate with censure him for doing justly as Iob 34. 17. 18. 19. expound it Ergo the king or his Forces may not be resisted in any case they might rather conclude Therefore neither Kingdome nor Parliament nor any Subject or person whatsoever ought to demand of the king to what end or why he hath raised Forces and Armed Papists against the Parliament and Protestant Religion These Court-Doctors might as truely conclude from hence If the king should command us to say Masse in his Chappell or our Parishes to adorne Images to turne professed Masse-priests c. to vent any Erronious Popish Doctrines to pervert the Scriptures to support Tyrannie and lawlesse cruelty we must and will as some of us doe cheerefully obey for where the word of a King is there is power and we may not say unto him what dost thou If a King should violently ravish matrons defloure virgins unnaturally abuse youth cut all his Subjects throates fire their houses sacke their Cities subvert their liberties and as Bellarmine puts the case of the Popes absolute irresistible authority send millions of soules to hell yet no man under paine of damnation may or ought to demande of him Domine cur ita facis Sir what doe you But was this the holy Ghosts meaning thinke you in this place If so then Nathan was much to blame for reprehending king Davids Adultery Azariah and the 40. Priests who withstood King Vzziah when he would have offered incense on the incense Altar and thrust him out of the Temple telling him it pertaineth not to thee Vzziah to burne incense to the Lord c. Were no lesse then Traytors John Baptist was much over-seene to tell King Herod It is not lawfull for thee to have thy brothers wife The Prophet who sharpely reprehended Amaziah for his Idolatry and new altar 2 Chron 25. 15. 16. was justly checked by the king Eliiah was to be rebuked for telling Ahab so plainely of his faults and sending such a harsh message to King Ahaziah Elisha much to be shent for using such harsh language to King Jehoram 2 Kings 3. 13. 14. yea Samuel and Hanani deserved the strappado for telling King Saul and Asa That they had done foolishly 1 Sam. 13. 3. 2 Chron. 15. 9. The meaning therefore of this Text so much mistaken unlesse we will censure all these Prophets and have Kings not onely irresistible but irreprehensible for their wickednesse is onely this No man may presume to question the kings just actions warranted by his lawfull royall power this text being parallel with Rom. 13. 1. 2. 3. 4. What then Ergo None must question or resist his or his Cavalleers unjust violence and proceedings not the Parliament the supremest Iudicature and Soveraigne Power in the Kingdome is a ridiculous consequence yet this is all this Text doth contribute to their present dying bad cause The 5. is that usually objected Text of Psal 105. 14 15. Touch not mine annointed Ergo the King and his Cavaleers must not be so much as touched nor resisted I wonder they did not as well argue Ergo none must henceforth kisse his Majesties hand since it cannot be done without touching him neither must his Barber trim him nor his Bedchamber-men attire him for feare of high Treason in touching him And the Cavaleers must not henceforth be arrested for their debts apprehended for their robberies and murthers neither must the Chyrurgion dresse their wounds or pock-soars or otherwise touch them so dangerous is it to touch them not out of fear of infection but for fear of transgressing this sacred Text scarce meant of such unhallowed God-dammeeâ— Such conclusions had been more literall and genuine then the first But to answer this long since exploded triviall Objection not named by Dr Ferne though revived by others since him I say first that this Text concernes not kings at all but the true anoynted Saints of God their Subjects whom kings have been alwayes apt to oppresse and persecute witnesse Psal 2. 2. c. Act. 4. 26. 27. Act. 12. 1 2 3 with all sacred and Ecclesiasticall Histories ancient or moderne This is most apparent first because these words were spoken by God to Kings themselves as the Text is expresse Psal 105 14 15. 1 Chron. 16. 20 21. He suffered no man to do them wrong but reproved even KINGS for their sakes saying even to king themselves namely to king Pharaoh an king Abimâ—lech Gen. 12. 10. to 20. Chap. 20. and 26 1. to 17. 29 Touch not mine Anointed and do my Prophets no harm Therefore not meant of kings Secondly because these words were spoken directly and immediately of Abraham Isaac Iacob their wives and families as it is evident by Verse 6. the whole series of the Psalme which is Historicall the forecited Texts of Genesis to which the words relate the punctuall confession of Augustine and all other Expositors on this Psalm Now neither they
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
to the assertion of the Apostle very ill applied saying The spirituall man is iudged of no man 1 Corinth 2. 15. Not meant of Bishops or Clergie-men but Saints alone endued with Gods Spirit not of judging in courts of iustice but of discerning spirituall things and their own spirituall Estates as the Context resolves Thus and much more this Prelate who notwithstanding this text of the Romanes pleads an exemption of all Bishops and Priests from the kings secular power by Divine Authority and arrogates to Priest and Prelates a iudiciary lawfull power over Kings themselves to excommunicate and censure them for their offences And to descend to later times even since the the Reformation of Religion here Iohn Bridges Dean of Sarum and Bishop of Oxfort even in his Book intituled The supremacy of Christian Princes over all persons thorowout their Dominions in all causes so well Ecclesiasticall as spirituall printed at London 1573. p. 1095. writes thus But who denies this M. Saunders that a godly Bishop may upon great and urgent occasion if it shall be necessary to edifie Gods Church and there be no other remedy flee to this last censure of Excommunication AGAINST A WICKED KING Making it a thing not questionable by our Prelates and Clergie that they may in such a case lawfully excommunicate the King himself And Doctor Bilson Bishop of Winchester in his True difference between Christian subiection and unchristian Rebellion dedicated to Queen Elizabeth her self printed at Oxford 1595. Part. 3. Page 369. to 378. grants That Emperours Kings and Princes may in some cases be Excommunicated and kept from the Lords Table by their Bishops and grants That with Hereticks and Apostates be THEY PRINCES or private men no Christian Pastor nor people may Communicate Neither finde I any Bishop or Court Doctor of the contrary opinion but all of them readily subscribe hereto If then not onely the ill Counsellors and Instruments of Kings but Kings and Emperours themselves may thus not onely be lawfully iustly resisted but actually smitten and excommunicated by their Bishops and Clergy with the spirituall sword for their notorious crimes and wickednesses notwithstanding this inhibition which Valentinian the Emperour confessed and therefore desired that such a Bishop should be chosen and elected in Millain after Auxentius as he himself might really and cordially submit to him and his reprehensions since he must sometimes needs erre as a man as to the medicine of souls as he did to Ambrose when he was elected Bishop there why they may not likewise be resisted by their Laity in the precedent cases with the temporall sword and subjected unto the censures of the whole Kingdoms and Parliaments transcends my shallow apprehension to conceive there being as great if not greater or the very self-same reason for the lawfulnesse of the one as of the other And till our Opposites shall produce a substantiall difference between these cases or disclaim this their practice and doctrine of the lawfulnesse of excommunicating Kings and Emperours they must give me and others liberty to conceive they have quite lost and yeelded up the cause they now contend for notwithstanding this chief Text of Romaves 13. the ground of all their strength at first but now of their ruine The tenth Objection is this that of 1 Pet. 2 13 14 15 16. Submit your selves to every ORDINANCE OF MAN for the Lords sake whether it be to The King AS SVPREAME or unto Governours as unto them that are sent by him to wit by God not the King as the distribution manifests and Rom. 13. 1 2 3 4. For the punishment of evill doers and for the praise of them that doe well c. Feare God Honour the King wee must submit to Kings and honour Kings who are the supream Governours therefore we may in no case forcibly resist them or their Officers though they degenerate into Tyrants To which I answer that this is a meerin consequent since the submission here injoyned is but to such Kings who are punishers of evill doers and praisers of those that do well which the Apostle makes the Ground and motive to submission therefore this text extends not to Tyrants and oppressours who doe quite contrary We must submit to Kings when they rule well and justly is all the Apostle here affirms Ergo wee must submit to and not resist them in any their violent courses to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties is meet non-sence both in Law Divinity and common Reason If any reply as they doe that the Apostle vers 18 19 20. Bids servants 〈◊〉 subject to their Masters with all feare not onely to the good and gentle but also to the froward For this is thank-worthy if a man for conscience towards God endure griefe suffering wrongfully c. Ergo this is meant of evill Magistrates and Kings as well as good I answer 1. That the Apostles speaks it onely of evill Masters not Kings of servants not subjects there being a great difference between servants Apprentices Villaines and free borne subiects as all men know the one being under the arbitrary rule and government of their Master the other onely under the just setled legall Government of their Princes according to the Lawes of the Realme Secondly this is meant onely of private personall iniuries and undue corrections of Masters given to servants without iust cause as vers 20. For what glory is it if when yee be BVFFETED FOR your faults c. intimates not of publike iniuries and oppressions of Magistrates which indanger the whole Church and State A Christian servant or subiect must patiently endure private undue corrections of a froward Master or King Ergo whole Kingdomes and Parliaments must patiently without resistance suffer their kings and evill Instruments to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties Realms the proper deduction heen is but a ridiculous conclusion Secondly This Text enjoynes no more subjection to kings then to any other Magistrates as the words Submit your selves TO EVERY ORDINANCE of Man Or unto Governors c. prove past all contradiction And vers 6. which bids us Honour the King bids us first in direct tearmes HONOVR ALL MEN to wit All Magistrates at least if not all men in generall as such There is then no speciall Prerogative of irresistability given to kings by this Text in injurious violent courses more then there is to any other Magistrate or person whatsoever God giving no man any Authority to injure others without resistance especially if they assault their persons or invade their Estates to ruine them Since then inferiour Officers and other menmay be forcâ—bly resisted when they actually attempt by force to ruine Religion Lawes Liberties the republike as I haue proved and our Antagonists must grant by the self-same reason kings may be resisted too notwithstanding any thing in this Text which attributes no more irresistability or authority to Kings then unto other Magistrates Thirdly Kings are here expresly called AN ORDINANCE OF
an Oath of execration by an ancient Law in memory whereof they instituted a speciall annuall Feast on the 23. of February called Regifugium the hatred of which Title continued such that Tully and Augustine write Regem Romae posthac nec Dii nec Homines esse patiantur And Caesar himself being saluted King by the multitude perceiving it was very distastfull to the States answered CAESAREM SE NON REGEM ESSE which Title of Caesar not King the Scripture ever useth to expresse the Emperour by witnesse Matth. 22. 17 21. Mark 12. 14 16 17. Luke 2. 1. chap. 20. 22 24 25. chap. 23. 2. John 19. 12 15. Acts 11. 28. chap. 17. 7. chap. 25. 8 10 11 12 21. chap. 26. 32. chap. 27. 24. chap. 28. 19. Phil. 4. 22. Which Texts do clearly manifest that no Title was ever used by the Apostles Evangelists Jewes to expresse the Emperour by but that of Caesar not this of King Therefore Peters Text speaking onely of the King not Caesar cannot be intended of the Romane Emperour as ignorant Doctors blindly fancie Fifthly This Epistle of Peter the Apostle of the Jews was written onely to the dispersed Jews thorowout Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bythinia 1 Pet. 1. 1. over whom Herod at that time reigned as King by the Romane Senates and Emperours appointment who had then conquered the Jews and made them a tributarie Province as is evident by Matth. 27. 17 21. Mark 12. 14 16 17. Luke 20. 22 24 25. chap. 23. 2. Acts 17. 7. chap. 25. 8 10 11 12 21. chap. 27. 24. chap. 12. 1. to 24. compared together and by Josephus the Century writers Baronius Sigonius and others The King then here mentioned to be supreame was Herod or King Agrippa or some other immediate King of the Jews who was their supreame Governour not absolutely but under the Romane Senate and Emperours and made so by their appointment whence called in the Text an Ordinance of man not God Now this King of the Jews as is evident by Pauls Appeal to Caesar from Festus and King Agrippa as to the Soveraign Tribunall Acts 25. and 26. by Josephus Philo Judaeus de legatione ad Caium and the consent of all Historians was not the absolute Soveraigne Power but subordinate to the Romane Emperour and Senate who both created and bad power to controll remove and censure him for his misdemeanours yet Peter calls him here Supreame because the Highest Governour under them as we stile our Kings Supreame Governours under Christ Therefore having a Superiour Governour and Power over him to which he was accountable and subordinate Supreame in the Text cannot be meant of a King absolutely Supreame having no Power Superiour to him but God but onely relatively Supreame in respect of under-Governours there actually residing whose Supremacie being forcibly gained onely by conquest not free consent and the ancient native Kings of the Jews being inferiour to their whole Senates and Congregations and to do all by their advice as Josephus Antiq. Jud. lib. 4. cap. 8. 2. Sam. 18. 3 4. Jer. 38. 45. 1. Chron. 13. 1. to 6. attest will no way advantage our Opposites nor advance the Prerogative of Kings since it extends onely to the King of the Jews that then was who was not simply Supream but a Subject Prince subordinate to the Romane State and Empire and one appointed by a Conquerour not freely chosen and assented to by the people So as all the Argument which can hence be extracted for the absolute Soveraigntie and irresistibility of Kings over their whole Kingdomes and Parliaments is but this The King of the Jews was in Peters time the Supreame Magistrate over that Nation by the Romane Senates and Emperours appointment to whom yet he was subordinate and accountable the Romanes having conquered the Jewes by force and imposing this government upon them without their consents Therefore the Kings of England and all other Kings are absolute Soveraigne Monarches Superiour to their whole Parliaments and Kingdomes collectively considered and may not in point of conscience be forcibly resisted by them though they endeavour to subvert Religion Laws Liberties How little coherence there is in this Argument the silliest childe may at first discern From these Scriptures I descend to Reasons deduced from them against resistance which I shall contract into three Arguments The first is this Kings are the Fathers Heads Lords Shepherds of the Common-wealth Ergo They ought not to be resisted in any their exorbitant proceedings it being unlawfull unseemly for a Son to resist his Father the Members the Head the Vassals their Lord the Flock their Shepherd To this I answer First They are Fathers Shepherds Lords Heads onely in an improper allegoricall not genuine sence therefore nothing can thence be properly inferred They are and ought to be such in respect of their loving and carefull affection towards their Subjects not in regard of their Soveraigne Power over them Therefore when their Tyrannie makes them not such in regard of care and affection to their people their people cease to be such in regard of filiall naturall and sheep-like submission When these Shepberds turn Wolves these Fathers Step-fathers the Subjects as to this cease to be their Sheep their Children in point of Obedience and Submission Secondly If we consider the Common-weal and Kingdom collectively Kings are rather their Kingdoms children then Parents because created by them their publike servants ministers for whose benefit they are imployed and receive wages not their Soveraigne Lords their subordinate Heads to be directed and advised by them not Tyrannically to over-rule them at their pleasure Therefore Paramount and able in such cases to resist them Thirdly Parishioners may no doubt lawfully resist the false Doctrines and open assaults of their Ministers though they be their Spirituall Shepherds Citizens the violent oppressions of their Maiors though they be their Politique Heads Servants the unjust assaults of their Masters though their lawfull Lords who may not misuse their very Villaines by Law And if Parents will violently assault their naturall children Husbands their Wives Masters their Servants to murther them without cause they may by Law resist repulse them with open force Fourthly A Son who is a Judge may lawfully resist imprison condemne his naturall Father A Servant his Lord A Parishioner his Pastour a Citizen his Major a meer Gentleman the greatest Peer or Lord as experience proves because they do it in another capacity as Judges and Ministers of publike Justice to which all are subject The Parliament then in this sence as they are the representative Body of the Realm not private Subjects and their Armies by their authority may as they are the highest Soveraign Power and Judicature resist the King and his Forces though he be their Father Head Shepherd Lord as they are private men Fifthly This is but the common