The Sovereign Power of Parliaments and Kingdoms

But even that rule, that it is lawful for any to do what he list with his own, holds not otherwise; then if the condition of a Neighbor be made neither worse nor more grievous thereby: although it be true that no man may take care of the gain, which his Neighbor made, and which was owing to him by no obligation. But even security, and a certain singular conjunction of love from a Neighbor, is due to Empires: Now this we know, what things are taken away when Neighbors are changed. And the same people is not the same that they were, if the Common-wealth be not the same that it was. For it is not lawful (I say again) to do all things with the Subjects; for that is not lawful with the Subjects which would be a hurt, and a danger to those that are no Subjects. It is not lawful to make Fortes in his own Land, which may be terrible to those that are not his, as you shall hear in the third Book. Therefore neither is it lawful to do with his own, that which may be a terror to others. How ever these are called equivalent, to do in his own place, and towards his own Subjects. Whether if my Neighbor should place in his House Gunnes, and other things against my House, may I neither be careful for myself, nor stir against my Neighbor? Thus, thus were Preparations made in Holland; and that great Noble man, Leicester, very wisely foresaw, that the defense of the Hollanders, was very wholesome and necessary for the Common-wealth, and he persuaded it to be undertaken, least if the Spaniards should break through that Pale of Europe, as then very wisely Iustus Lipsius, called it there should remain no obstacle at all to their cruelty. And thus far of War Defensive.

Thus, and much more this our learned Professor of the Civil Law, Albericus Gentilis; whose words I have thus largely transcribed; because they not only abundantly justify the lawfulness of the Parliaments present Defensive War in point of Law, and their Ordinances of Association and mutual Defense, but likewise fully answer all the cavils and pretences of Royalists and Malignants against the progress and managing of this war, from principles of Nature, Law, Human Reason, Equi • y, and human Authorities.

THE LAWFVLNES OF THE PARLIAMENTS present Defensive War in Point of Divinity and Conscience.

THe lawfulness and justness of the Parliaments present necessary Defensive War, in point of Common, Civil, Canon Law, and Policy, having been largely debated in the premises, because not hitherto discussed in that kind by any, to my knowledge; I shall in the next place proceed to justify it in point of Divinity and Conscience; Wherein, though I shall be more concise then I intended, because sundry Learned * Divines, in many late Printed Books, common in all men's hands have professedly handled it at large, and given good satisfaction unto many unresolved scrupulous Consciences; yet because this Treatise may come into diverse hands, which have not perused their discourses; and those whose judgments may be convinced by the Legal, may still have some scruples of Conscience resting in them, in reguard of the Theological Part, and because some things (perchance) in Point of Theology, which others have wholly omitted, may seasonably be here supplied, to satisfy Consciences yet unresolved of the justness of the present, and all other necessary Defensive Wars, I shall not over-sparingly or cursorily pass through it, without a competent debate▪

Now lest the Consciences of any should be seduced, ensnared with generalities, or clear mistakes through the mis-stating of the points in question, with which devise, many have been hitherto deluded by the Opposites, who cumbate only with their own misshapen fancies, discharging all their Gu • shot against such Tenets as are not in question, a • d no ways coming near the White in Controversy, I shall for my own orderly proceeding, and the better satisfaction of ignorant, scrupulous, seduced consciences, more punctually state the Question, then formerly in the Legal Part; first, Negatively, next, Positively; and then proceed to its debate. Take notice therefore.

First, that this is no part of the question in dispute. Whether the Parliament, or any [ 1] Subjects wha • soever, may actually disobey, or violently with force of Arms resist the Kings, or any other lawful Magistrates just commands, warranted either by God's Word, or the Laws of England? it being out of controversy, readily subscribed by all of both sides; that Such commands ought not so much as to be disobeyed, much less forcibly resisted but cheerfully submitted to, and readily executed for Conscience sake, Rom. 13. 1. to 6. 1 Pet. 2. 13, 14. Tit. 3. 1. Hebr. 13. 17. Josh. 1. 16, 17, 18. Ezra. 7. 26. Eccles. 8 2, 3, 4, 5. the only thing these objected Scriptures prove, which come not near 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 rebel against their Prince, by way of Muteny, Faction, or Sedition, without any just, or lawful public ground; or for every trifling injury, or provocation offered them by their Prince? Or whether private men, for personal wrongs (especially where their lives, chastities, livelihoods are not immediately endangered, by actual violent, unjust assaults) may in point of Conscience, lawfully resist, or rise up against their Kings, or any other lawful 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, do or can evince.

Thirdly, nor is this any parcel of the Con • roversie. Whether Subjects may lay violent hands upon the persons of their Princes, wittingly or willingly to deprive them of their Lives or Liberties, • specially, for private Injuries; or in cold blood, when they do not actually nor personally assault their lives or chastities; or for any public misdemeanors, without a precedent sentence of Imprisonment, or death against them given judicially, by the whole States or Realms, where they have such Authority to araigne and judge them? For allunanimously disclaim, yea abominate such Traitorous practices and Jesuitical Positions, as execrable and unchristian: yet this is all which the example of David's 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) truly prove.

Fourthly, Neither is this the thing in difference, as most mistake it. Whether the Parliament may lawfully raise an Army to go immediately and directly against the very person of the King, to apprehend or offer violence to him, much less intentionally to destroy him, or to resist his own personal attempts against them, even to the hazard of his life? For the Parliament, and their Army too, have in sundry Rem • nstrances, Declarations, Protestations, and Petitions, renounced any such disloyal intention or design at all; for which there is no color to charge them; and were his Majesty now alone, or attended only with his Ordinary Courtly Guard, there needed no Army nor Forces to resist his personal assaults: Yet this is made the principal matter in question by Doctor Ferne, by An appeal to thy Conscience, and other Anti-parliamentary Pamphlets; who m • ke this the sole Theame of their Discourses: That Subjects may not take up Arms Against their Lawfull Sovereign, because he is wicked and unjust; no, though he be an Idolater and Oppressor: That, Sup • ose the King will not discharge his trust, but is bent, or seduced to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, yet Subjects may not take up Arms, and resist the King, it being unwarrantable, and according to the Apostle, damnable, Rom. 13. Yea, this is all the questions the C •• valleers and Malignants demand of their Opposites in this cause. What? will you take up Arms; will you fight against, or resist the King? &c. Never stating the question of his Forces, his Army of Papists, Malignants, Delinquents, but only of the King himself abstracted from his invading, depopulating Forces, against whom, in this sense of theirs, the Parliament never yet raised any Forces, nor made the least resistance hitherto.

These four particulars then being not in question, I shall here appeal to the most Malignant Conscience: Wh • there Doctor Ferne, and all other our Opposites, pretenders of Conscience, have not ignorantly, if not maliciously, made ship wrack of their good Consciences (had they ever any) by a willful mistating of the Controversy, concerning the present Defensive War, in the four preceding particulars, which they make the only Questions; when not so much as one of them comes within the Verge of that which is the real Controversy; and never once naming that in all, or any of their Writings, which is the point indeed? Secondly, Whether there be any one Text or Reason in all their Pamphlets, particularly applied to anything which concerns the present War, but only to these four particulars, which are not in debate? And if so, (as no Conscience can gain-say it) then there is naught in all the wast Papers they have published, which may either resolve or scruple any Conscience, That the Parliaments Defensive Arms and resistance are unlawful in point of Divinity, or Conscience, which is steered by the Scriptures Compass.

But if these particulars be not in question; you may now demand, what the knot and true state of the present Controversy, in point of Conscience, is? In few words, take it thus.

Wh • there both Houses of Parliament, and the Subjects by their Author • ty, for the preservation of their own Persons, Privileges, Laws, Lives, Liberties, Estates, Religion; the apprehension of Voted contumatious Traitors, and Delinquents, the res • uing his seduced Majesty out of the power of Popish pernicious Counselors and Forces, who end • avour the Kingdoms subversion, by withdrawing him from, and incensing him against his Parliament, may not lawfully with a good Conscience, take up necessary defensivs Arms, and make actual Warlike resistance against his M • j • sti • s Maligna it ill Counselors, and invading Popish Forces ( who now Murder, Rob, Spoile, Sacke, Depopu • ate the Kingdom in a most Hostile manner, to set up Tyranny, Popery, and an Arbitrary lawless Government, ) in case they come armed with his personal presence, or commission, to • xecute these their wicked illegal designs; Especially, when neither the Parliament nor their forces in this their resistance, have the least thought at all, to offer any violence▪ to the Kings own person, or to oppose his Legal, just Sovereign Authority?

Or shorter, Whether the Kings Captains an • Soldier • s invading the Parliam • nt, and Subjects, as aforesaid, the Parliament or Subjects (especially when authorized by an Ordinance of both Houses) may not with a safe Conscience forcibly resist these Malignants though armed wit • the Kings illegal Commissions, without his personal presence, or with his presence and Commissions too? And for my part, I think it most evident, that they may lawfully resist, repulse them, even by Divine Authority. For the better clearing whereof, I shall premise these three undeniable Conclusions.

First, That no lawful King or Monarch whatsoever, (much less the Kings of [ 1] England, who are no absolute Princes) have any the least Authority from the Laws of God or man, personally by themselves, or instruments, to do any injury or injustice to their Subjects; how much less then by open Forc • to Murder, Rob, Plunder, Ravish, Ruin, or Spoile them of their Laws, Liberties, Estates, Religion, all which is plentifully proved by Law Authorities, in the premises; and punctually confirmed by these ensuing Texts. Ezech. 44 15. 16, 17. cap. 45. 8, 9. Psalm. 105. 14 15. Isaiah 14. 15, to 23. 2 Sam. 23. 3. Isaiah 1. 23. cap. 3. 12. 14. 15. Prov. 28. 15. 16. Ez •• h. 22. 6. 7. 27. Zeph. 3. 3. Mich. 3. 1. to 12. 1 Sam. 12. 3. 4. 5. 1 King. cap. 21. & 22. Zeph. 2. 8. Is • y 9. 7. cap. 16. 5. cap. 32. 1. 2. cap. 49. 23. 2 Chron. 9. 8. Ier. 22. 3. to 32. Obad. 2. 10. to 16. Rom. 13. 3. 4. 5. • . 1 Pet. 2. 13. 16. and infinite Scriptures more.

[ 2] Secondly, That all Subjects and persons whatsoever, are obliged both in point of Law and Conscience to disobey, resist, and not execute, the unjust illegal Commissions, Mandates of their Kings, and other Magistrates. This is evident by the Midwives refusal to mur • her the Hebrews Male-child • en at King Pharaoh's command, for which God blessed them, and built them houses Exod • . 15 to 20. By Balaam's denial to curse or defy the Israelites, at King B • lacks entreaty Numb. 22. & 23. & 24. By the refusal of Saul's Guard and Footmen to s • ay or fall on the Priests a Nob, by King Saul's personal command, though present, and not only their King but Master too: 1 Sam. 22. 17. 18. By Jonathan's denial to kill, or consent to the death of David upon Saul's mandate, though not only his Sovereign, but Father, although he might have gained the Crown by it, and endangered his own life by refusing it, 1 Sam. 20. 27. to 42. By Saul's Armor-bears forbearance to run him thorough with his Sword, when he fled before the Philistines, though he as his King and Master enjoined him to do it; lest the uncircumcised should come and thrust him through and abuse him. 1 Sam. 31. 4. By Mordechai his denial to bend the knee to Haman, the great Favorite, though the King had so commanded, Esther 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. By Shadrac • , Meshach, Abednego, and Daniel's refusal, to eat of the Kings portion of meat and wine assigned them, least they should be de • iled, Dan. 1. 5. to 12. By their peremptory resolution, not To fall down and worship King Nebuchadnezzar's golden Image, though twice strictly commanded by the King to do it, and threatened to be cast into the fiery Furnace (as they were) for refusing it, Dan. 3. 4. to 30. By Daniel's disobeying the Kings and Lord's Idola • rous Decree, not to offer a Petition to any God or man for 30. days, save of King Darius, under pain of being cast into the Lions Den, Dan. 6. 5. to 24. By the Pharisees and chief Priests Officers neglect to apprehend our Savior for his Preaching, though enjoined so to do by their Masters, John 7. 32. to 48. By the Apostles refusal to give over Preaching, and perseverance in Preaching, notwithstanding the High Priests and Councils express Inhibitions and doubled Commands, seconded with Apprehensions, Imprisonments, Scourgings; and their direct resolutions in this very case, That we ought to obey God rather then men, Acts 4. 12. to 22 cap. 5. 17. to the end. By Peters Preaching to, and conversing with the Vncircumci • ed Gentiles, notwithstanding the Christian Jews d • slike, Acts 11. 1. to 19. with infinite Presidents of this nature in Ecclesiastical Histor • es; the very sufferings of all the Martyrs depending on this ground alone: which is backed by Matth. 10. 28. 32. 33. Luc. 12 4. 8. cap. 9. 23. 24. 25. 26. Ezech. 2. 3. to 9. Rev. 13. 3. to the end. Rom. 12 1. 2. John 16. 2. 3. 1 Thess • 2 14. 15. 16. Exod 32. 2. Josh 24 15. Psalm. 44. 15. to 23.

[ 3] Thirdly, That as all Kings illegal unjust commands are void in Law, and will no ways extenuate the guilt, or justify the actions of those instruments who execute them in point of Law, as I have fo • m • rly cleared; so are they likewise mere nullities, and insufficient to excuse the executioners of them in point of Conscience; as is evident by, Psal. 52. 5. where God threatens to destroy Doeg the Edomite, for ever, to take him away, pluck him out of his dwelling place, and root him out of the land of the Living, for executing King Saul's bloody command upon the Priests at Nob, 1 Sam. 22. By God's exemplary punishment upon those Soldiers who by King Nebuchadnezzar's special command, bound the three Children and cast them into the firy Furnace; who were slain by the flames of the Furnac • e, though these three Martyrs had no harm in the Furnace it self, Dan. 3. 20. to 28. By God's consuming the two Captains and their fifties with fire from heav • n, who came violently to apprehend the Prophet Elija • by King Ahaziah his commission, and unjust command, 2 King. 1. 9. to 16. By the Precept of John the Baptist given to Soldiers themselves, Luke 3. 14. Do violence to no man: (neither by the Kings, nor Generalls Command) neither accuse any falsely. By 1 Tim. 5. 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man, (no more in a violent, Military, then an Ecclesiastical sense) neither be partakers of other men's sins: Compared with the next forecited Scriptures; with Rom. 1. 32. Math. 15. 14. Psal. 50. 18. 21. Prov. 1. 10. to 16. Oba • . ver • . 10. to 16. Isaiah 1. 23. with Isaiah 9. 16. The leaders of this people cause them to err, and those th • t are led of them are destroyed. What therefore Saint John writes in another case, 2 John 10. 11. If there come any unto you (be he an Archbishop, Bishop, Archdeadon, Ferne himself, or any Court Chaplain whatsoever,) and b • ing not this Doctrine; receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed; for he that biddeth him God speed, Is partaker of his evil Deeds: I shall apply to this particular of executing Kings unjust Commands against their people; they are partakers of their Kings wickedness, if they do but entertain their unjust Commissions into their Houses or bid them God speed; much more if they execute them either voluntarily, or against their wills, out of an unworthy fear, or base respects.

These three Conclusions being irref • agable, My first Argument to justify resistance [ 1] from them shall be this. That violence against the Subjects persons, Consciences, Families, Estates, Properties, Privileges, or Religion, which neither the King himself in proper person, nor any his Officers, nor Soldiers by command from him, have any Autoritie by the Laws of God or man, in Law or Conscience to inflict: and which in Conscience ought not to be obeyed, but rejected as a mere nullity, even by the instruments enjoined for to execute it; may justly with a safe Conscience be • esisted by the Parliament and Subjects; there being not one syllable in God's Word to contradict it. But the violence now offered by the Kings Forces to the Parliament and Snubjects everywhere, is such. Therefore it may justly with a safe Conscience be resisted; especially in the Kings Commanders and Soldiers, who are neither the King himself, nor the Higher Powers ordained by God; and no other then plain Thieves and Murderers in Law and Conscience, if they plunder, kill, spoil; their Commissions being but Nullities in both; and they in this particular mere private men, without any Authority to justify their actions, as I have already proved.

Secondly, That resi • tance which is warranted by direct Precedents recorded, approved [ 2] in Scripture even by God himself, must questionless be lawful in case of conscience: But the resistance even of Kings, their highest Magistrates, officers in the execution of their unjust Commands is thus warranted. Therefore, doubtless, it must be lawful in point of Conscience. The Minor (only questionable) is thus confirmed. First, by the notable example of the Prophet E • ijah, 2 Kings 1. 2. to • 6. who sending back King Ahaziah his Messengers (sent by him to inquire of Baal • zebub the God of Ekron, whether he should recover of his disease) with an harsh Message to the King, contra • y to his Command, which they disobeyed; thereupon this King, in an angry fume, sent two Captains with 50. men apiece, one after another, to apprehend the Prophet for this affront; (as Josephus, with other Interpreters accord,) who coming with their forces to him, said; Thou man of God, the King hath said, come down quickly. To whom he successively answered: If I be a man of God, th • n let fire come down from Heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty; And there came fire from heaven thereupon, and consumed two Captains and their fifties: but the third Captain and his fifty, who hum • led themselves to the Prophet, and begged the sparing of their lives, were spared; the Angel of the Lord bidding the Prophet to go down with them to the King, and not be afraid. From which Text it is infallible, even by a divine Miracle from heaven, doubled by God himself; That it is lawful for Subjects in some cases, to resist the unjust violence of the Soldiers and Captains of their Kings though armed with their Regal Commands. Secondly, by the History of the Prophet Elisha, 2 Kings 6. 31, 32, 33. Who when King • oram (his Sovereign) had sworn unjustly in his fury; God do so to me and more also, if the heàd of Elisha shall stand on him this day; and thereupon sent a Messenger before him to Elisha his house to take away his head; the Prophet was so far from submitting to this Instrument of his; that he Commanded the Elders sitting then with him in the house, to look when the Messenger came, and shut the door, and Hold him fast at the Door, though the sound of his Masters feet (the King) were behind him; whom he stiles, the son of a Murderer. Might these two eminentest Prophets thus openly resist the Captains, Soldiers, and unjust Executioners of their Princes, with a good Conscience; and may not others lawfully do the like? No doubt they may. Thirdly, (If I be not much mistaken) this kind of resistance is warranted even by Christ himself, and his Apostles: For a little before his Apprehention, Christ uttered this speech unto his Disciples, Luke 22. 36, 37, 38. But Now, he that hath no Sword, let him sell his garment and buy one, &c.—And they said, Lord, behold, here are two Swords. And he said unto them, it is enough. Why would Christ have his Disciples buy Swords now, unless it were for his and their own better Defense, being the time when he was to be apprehended. Soone after this Judas and his Band of men sent from the High Priests, with Swords and Staves came to seize upon Christ. Which when they who were about him saw what would follow: They said unto him; Lord, shall we smite with the Sword? His commanding them to buy Swords now, was sufficient ground for this question, and intimation enough, that they might now use them: whereupon Christ giving no negative answer; One of them which were with Jesus (and John directly saith it was Peter ) smote a servant of the High Priest (whose name was Malchus ) and cut off his right ear. Hereupon Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye Thus Far: So Luke; Mark relates no answer at all reprehending this fact: John records his speech to Peter thus. Then, said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy Sword into the sheath. The Cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink? To which Matthew adds, thinkinst thou that I cannot pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more then twelve Legions of Angels? But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? So that the reason why Christ bade Peter thus to put up his sword; was not because he thought defense of himself, and Peters smiting now altogether unlawful in it self; but only inconsistent with God's present providence, which it should seem to cross. Christ was now by God's eternal decree, and the Scriptures prediction, (which must be necessarily fulfilled) to suffer death upon the Cross for our iniquities: should Peter then, with the other Disciples have totally resisted his apprehention at this time, and proceeded still to smite with the Sword as they began, till they had rescued our Savior, he could not then have suffered, nor the Scriptures be fulfilled: had it not been for this special reason (rendered by Christ himself, to clear all scruples against the Lawfulnesse of self-defense in such cases,) Peter might still have used his sword to rescue his Master from these Catchpoles violence; and if he and his fellows had been too weak to withstand them, Christ was so far from imagining that he might not have lawfully defended himself; that he informs them, he could (and would no doubt) have presently commanded whole Legi • ns of Angels from heaven, by his Fathers approba • sion, to rescue him from unjust violence. And his Speech to Pilate, after his taking, plainly, justifies the lawfulness of such a forcible defense with Arms to preserve a man's life from unjust execution: John 18. 36 If my Kingdom were of this world, Then would my Servants fight (in my Defense and Rescue) that I should Not be delivered to the Jews: but now my kingdom is not from hence. All which considered, clearly justifies, the Lawfulnesse of resisting the Kings, or higher Powers Officers, in cases of apparent unjust open violence or assaults; and withal answers one grand argument against resistance from our Savior's present Example: namely, Christ himself made no resistance when he was unjustly apprehended; Ergo, Christians his Followers (Ergo, no Kings, no Magistrates too, as well as Christ the King of Kings, and Lord of Lord's, for they are Christians as well as subjects;) ought not to make any for • ible resistance of open violence: Which argument is a mere inconsequent; because the reason why Christ resisted not these Pursevants, and High Priests Officers, was only, that his Fa • hers decree, and the Scriptures foretelling his Passion might be fulfilled, as himself resolves; not because he deemed resistance Vnlawfull, which he even then approved, though he practiced it not, as these Texts do fully prove.

Fourthly, The lawfulness of a defensive War, against the invading Forces of [ 4] a Sovereign, is warranted by the example of the City Abel; which stood out and defended it self against Joab, David's General, and his Forces, when they besieged and battered it; till they had made their peace, with the head of Sheba who fled into it for shelter, 2 Sam. 20. 14. to 23. And by that of Ester, Ch. 8. 8. to 17. chap. 9. 1. to 17. pertinent to this purpose. Where Haman having gotten the Kings Decree, to be sent unto all Provinces for the utter extirp • tion of the whole Nation of the Jews, the King after Haman's Execution (through God's great mercy, and Mordecai's and Queen Esters diligence) to prevent this bloody massacre by their Enemies, granted to the Jews in every City, by Letters under his Seal, To gather themselves together, and to stand for their lives, to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish all the power of the people and Province That would Assault them, both little ones and women, and to take the spoil of them for a prey; and that the Jews should be ready against the day, to avenge themselves of their enemies. Hereupon when the day, that the Kings Commandment and Decree (for their extirpation) drew nee •• to be put in execution, in the day that the enemies of the Jews hoped to have power over them; the Jews gathered themselves together in their Cities, throughout all the Provinces of King Ahasuerus, to lay hand on such as sought their hurt; and no man could withstand them, for the fear of them fell upon all people: And all the Rulers of the Provinces, and the Lieutenants, Deputies, and Officers of the King helped the Jews, because the fear of Mordecai fell upon them: So the Jews smote all their enemies with the stroke of the Sword, and slaughter, and destruction, and did what they would unto those that hated them. In the Place they slew eight hundred men, and Haman's ten sons, on several days. And the other Jews that were in the Provinces, gathered themselves together, and Stood for their Lives, and had rest from their enemies, and slew of their foes seventy and five thousand, but they laid not their hands on the prey. Loe here a Defensive war, justified, and granted lawfu • l, by the Kings own Letters to the Jews, against their enemies, who by former Charters from him, had Commission wholly to ex • irpate them, Neither had this license of the Kings in point of Co • science, been lawful, had their defense and resistance of the Kings former Commission been wholly unlawful. And the reason of the Kings grant to them, to resist and slay their Enemies, that would assault them; was not simply, because their resistance without it, ad standing for their lives, had been unlawful, by reason of the Kings first unjust Decree, which they ought not in Conscience to submit to, without repugnancy; But only to enable the Jews, then Captives, and scattered abroad one from another in every Province, with more convenience, security, boldness, and courage now to join their forces together, to resist their malicious potent enemies; to daunt them the more thereby; Nature it self, yea, and all Laws in such a bloody National Butchery as this, without any j • st cause at all, both taught and en • bled everyone of the Jews, to stan • for his life, his Nations, Relig • ons, preservation, even to the last drop of blood. Therefore the Letters of the King did not s • mply enable them to resist t • eir enemies, which they might have done without them; but give them Authority to destroy, and slay the Wives and little children of their Enem • es, and to take the spoil of them for a prey; which they re • used to do, because they deemed it unjust, notwithstanding the Kings permission and concessi • n, which as to these particulars, was illegal, and more then he could justly grant. This general National resistance of God's own people then of their assaulting cruel Enemies, even among Strangers, in the land of their Captivity under a foreign Enemy, with the former and other following precedents, will questionless more then conjecturally prove, if not infallibly resolve, The lawfulness of a necessary Defensive War, and opposition by free Subjects, against their Kings assailing Forces which seeks their ruin, though armed with their Kings Commission, and that without any Ordinance of Parliament authorising them to resist, much more then, when enabled to oppose them by O • dinances of bo • h Houses, as the Jews were to resist and slay their enemies by this Kings Letters and Authority.

[ 3] Thirdly, That kind of resistance which hath no one Text, nor Example in Scripture to impeach its lawfulness, but many Texts and precedents to countenance it, must doubtless be lawful in point of Conscience. But the resisting of Kings invading pillaging, destructive Forces (who have nothing to plead, to justify all their Villanies but a void illeg • ll Warrant) hath no one Text nor example in Scripture to impeach its lawfulness, for ought I can find; (and if there be any such, I wish the Opposites would object it, for R • m. 13. as I shall show hereafter, doth no ways contradict, but approve it:) But it hath many Texts and precedents to countenance it, as the premises and sequel attest: Therefore it must doubtless be lawful in point of Conscience.

[ 4] Fourthly, it is confessed by all men, (yea those who are most intoxicated with an Anabaptistical spirit, condemning all kind of war, refusing to carry Arms to defend themselves against any Enemies, Thieves, or Pirates) that it is lawful not only passively to resist their Kings unlawful Commands, and invading Forces, but like wise by flight, hiding, or other policies, to evade and prevent their violence; which is warranted not only by Moses, David's, and Elijah's, their several flights from the violence of the Egyptians, Sa •• , and 〈◊〉 who sought their lives; but likewise by I • seph, Mar • , and Christ himself, who fled into Egypt to escape the hand • and but chery of King Herod; by Christ's own direction to his Disciples Matth • 10, 23. But when they pers • cute you in this City, flee ye into another; and that Prediction of his Matth. 23. 34. Behold, I se • d unto you Prophets, and wise men, and Scribes, and •• me of them ye shall kill and crucify, 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. 12. 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. • Cor. 11. 32. 33. Rev. 12. 6. Of which read more in Tertullian his b • oke 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, means, or convenience to resist it, they may no doubt lawfully resist even with force of Arms, when they have sufficient means and conveniences to resist, and cannot flee or submit thereto, without the public ruin: since the same justice and equity, which enables them by flight or stratagem to decline unjust assaults of a superior power, or its judgments, doth likewise enable them to escape and prevent it with resistance, when they cannot do it by flight or other polici • : If then they may lawfully with a safe conscience hide, flee, or use lawful policies, to prevent the open injust violence of their kings and their Officers, when not guilty of any capital crime deserving censures; because by the very light of nature, and Law of Charity they are obliged to preserve themselves from unjust tyranny; and are no ways bound to subject themselves to the cruelty, the unjust assaults, or oppressions of others: then by the selfsame reason, they may lawfully with force of Arms 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 public, but by such resistance, and should both betray their own, the public safety, and Religion (as the Subjects and Parliament should now do) in case they did not resist by force of Arms to the utmost of their power: and become worse than Infidels, who have even thus oft provided for their own and the Republickes security.

Fif • lie, God himself, the founta • ne of justice, the God of Order, the preserver of human society who detests of all tyranny▪ cruelty oppression, injustice, out of his Philanthropie (which brought the Son of his bosom from heaven to earth) would never certainly in point of policy or conscience prohibit that, which is the only probable means and apparent, remedy, to prevent, suppress disorder, tyranny, cruelty, oppression, injustice, yea confusion in the world; and to preserve good order and human society: a truth so apparent, that no rational 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 ruin them, or subvert their established government, Laws, Liberties, Justice, Religion: There being no other probable ordinary means left to any Kingdom, Nation, People, to preserve their government, lives, Laws, Liberties, Religion, and to prevent, suppress, or redress tyranny, cruelty, disorder, confusion, yea utter ruin, when their Kings and Governors degenerate into Tyrants, invading them with open force, but only defensive Arms: prayers and tears alone, without military opposition by force of Arms, being no more able to defend a person, City or Kingdom against Oppr • ssing Princes and their Armies, then against thieves, Pirates or common enemies; whom they must and ought to resist, as well with Arms as Orisons, with Speares as well as Tears, else they should but tempt the Lord and destroy themselves (like those Jews and Goths who would not fight upon the Sabbath, and so were slain by their enemies without resistance: ) yea willfully suffer the Commonwealth to be subverted, Religion ex • irpated; Laws trampled under feet, their own posterities to be enslaved, ruined without any opposition, even in a moment. For were it utterly unlawful, and no less then Treason or Rebellion, in point of conscience for any subjects to take up Defensive Arms to resist the Kings army, or forces, consisting for the most part of Papists, Delinquents, deboist Athesticall persons of broken fortunes, seared consciences and most irreligious lives, I appeal to every man's conscience, how soon these unresisted Instruments of cruelty would utterly extirpate our protestant Religion, and common faith, for which we are enjoined earnestly to contend and strive: 〈◊〉 3. Phil. 1. 27. 28. And shall we then yield it up and betray it to our adversaries without strife or resistance? how suddenly would they ruin our Parliament, Laws, Liberties; subvert all civil order, government; erect an arbitrary Lawlesse tyrannical Regency regulated by no laws but will and lust? how soon would they murder, imprison, execute our Noblest Lord's, Knights, Burgesses, best Ministers, and Commonwealths-men for their fidelity to God, their King and Country? how many Noble families would they disinherit? how many wives, widows, Virgins would they force and ravish; what Cities, what Countries, would they not totally pillage, plunder, sack, ruin, consume with fire and sword? how soon would our whole Kingdom become an Acheldama, a wilderness, a desolation, and the surviving inhabitants either slaves or beasts, if not devils incarnate? Yea how speedy might any private Officers, Captains, Commanders, by color of illegal Com • issions and commands from the King, or of their Offices, and all the notorious rogues and thieves of England, under color of being listed in the Kings Army, if the people might not in point of Law or Conscience resist them with Arms who came armed for to act their villainies, maliciously rob, spoil, plunder, murder all the Kings leige people, without any remedy or prevention, and by this pretext, that they are the Kings Soldiers, suddenly seise and gain all the arms, treasure, forts, ammunition, power of the Realm, into their possessions in a moment; and having thus strengthened themselves, and slain the Kings faithful subjects, usurp the crown it self if they be ambitious, as many private Captains and Commanders have anciently slain divers Roman and Grecian Emperors, yea sundry Spanish, Gothish and Moorish Kings in Spain by such practices and aspired to their Crowns, (of which there are sundry such like presidents in most other Realms:) to prevent, redress, which several destructive mischiefs to People, Kingdom, Kings themselves, God himself hath left us no other certain, proper, sufficient remedy but a forcible resistance, which all Kingdoms, Nations throughout the world, have constantly used in such cases, as I shall manifest more largely in the Appendix. Therefore certainly it must needs be lawful, being God's and Natures special Ordinance to secure innocent persons, Cities, Nations, Kingdoms, Laws, Liberties, Lives, Estates, Religion, and mankind it self, against the hurtful Lusts of unnatural Tyrants, and their accursed instruments, against ambitious, treacherous, male-contented Spirits, maliciously bent against the public weal, and peace. There are two things only which usually restrain inferior persons from murthering, robbing, disseising, injuring one another; the one is, fear of punishment by the Magistrate; the other, fear and danger of being resisted, repulsed with shame and loss of limb or life by those they violently assault, injure; and were this once believed, received for Law or Divinity in the world, that it were unlawful to resist, repulse a thief, murderer, rioter, or disseisor coming in the Kings name, long enjoy his life, goods, liberty, lands, but some or other would deprive him of them notwithstanding all restraints of Laws, of penalties, and maintain suites against him with his own estate violently seised on; the right of lawful defense, being every man's best security, to preserve his life, estate, in peace against the violence of another, whence the wisdom of the Common Law, makes every man's house his Castle, in the necessary defense whereof, and of his person, goods from the violence, rape of others, it gives him liberty to beat, repulse, yea kill injurious assailants: which right of defense if once denied, would open a wide gap to all wickedness, 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 deem themselves above the reach of human Laws, censures, and accountable for their unjust actions to none but God himself, there is no other known bar or obstacle to hinder or restrain their armed violence, Tyrannie, oppressions, but only the fear of the oppressed assaulted subjects armed resistance; which if once denied to be lawful, all Royalties would soon be transformed into professed Tyranni • s, all Kings & Magistrates into Tyrants, all Liberty into slavery, property into community, and everyone would thereby be exposed as a voluntary prey to the arbitrary cruelty covetousness, avarice, lusts, of the greatest men. Therefore doubtless this armed resistance cannot but be lawful, necessary, just, in point of Law and Conscience, to eschew these general mischiefs.

Sixthly, all will readily grant it lawful in case of Conscience, for subjects to resist a foreign enemy which invades them with force of Arms, though animated by the King himself to such invasion; and why so, but because they are their enemies, who would wrongfully deprive them of their native inheritance, Liberties, estates, and work them harm; 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 armor, and upward to withstand them, and stood in the border; and when ever the Midianites, Phili •• ines, Syrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Canaanites or other enemies came to assault the Israelites, they presently assembled together in Arms 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 domestic 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 self same ground for the lawfulness of resistance of the one as the other, and if the balance incline to one side more than other, an intestine enemy being more unnatural, unjust, hurtful, dangerous, and transgressing more Laws of the Realm (which oblige not strangers) than a Forraigner, and a Civil war being far worse, and more destructive than a Forraigne; the resistance of an homebred enemy, must be the more just and lawful of the two, even in point of Conscience.

Seventhly, The very Law of God both alloweth and commands all men, to resist their spiritual enemies, with spiritual Arms: I am 4. 7. Resist the Devil 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 adversary the devil as a roaring Lyon walketh about seeking whom he may devour: whom resist steadfast 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 Armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle (or war) not against flesh and blood, but against Principalities, against powers, against the Rulers of the darkness of this world, against Spiritual wickedness (or wicked spirits) in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole Armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand: Stand therefore having your loins girded about with truth, &c. Above all taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked; And take the helmet of Salvation, and the sword of the spirit, which is the Word of God: Praying always with all prayer and supplication. Hence Christians are termed, Soldiers of Jesus Christ, and Ch • istianity a warf •• e, against the world, the flesh, and Prince of the world, the Devil: 2 Tim. 2. 3, 4. 2 Cor. 10. 3. 1 Tim. 1. 18. I am. 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 sin, Heb. 12. 4. Vsing not only prayers and tears, but other spiritual weapons of war, mighty through God, able to • ast down every high thing that exalteth it self, to bring into Captivitie every thought to the obedience of Christ, and to revenge all disobedien • e, 2 Cor. 10. 4. 5. 6. If then we may and must manfully resist, and fight against our Spiritual enemies, though Principalities, Powers, Rulers, wicked spirits in high Places, and the Prince of this world himself, the Devil, when they ass • ult and seek to devour our souls: then by the selfsame reason, we l • wfully with a safe conscience may, yea ought to resist, repulse our corporal enemies when they maliciously, un • u •• lie, forcibly assault us, against all rules of Law, of Conscience, to murder, enslave, destroy our bodies, Souls, Religion, the Republic, 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 only with prayers and tears, but corporal Arms and force, because they unnaturally, tyrannically, seek the destruction of our bodies, estates, Liberties, Republic, Religion, there being no inhibition in Scripture, not to resist the one or other, but infinite Texts authorising men, not only to resist, but war against, yea slay their malicious open enemies, until they be sub • ued or destroyed, Exod. 23. 22. 27. Levi. 26. 7. 8. Num. 24. 8. Deut. 20. throughout. Josh. c. 8. to c. 13. 2 Sam. 22. 38. to 42. 1 Chron. 17. 8. 10. Esth. 9. 5. Neither do the Texts of Mat. 5 39. Luk. 6. 29. But I say unto you, that ye resist not • vill, but whosoever sh • ll s •• ite thee on the right cheek • , turn to him the other also, and hi • that taketh away thy cloak, forbid not to take thy c • ate also; prohibit all actual resistance of public violence offered by enemies to our persons, goods, or lawful defensive wars; which precept (as is clear by the context, and resolved by Augustine, Gratia • , Alensis, and ^f others) extends only to some private injuries and revenges, and to the inward patient preparation of the mind to suffer two injuries, rather thē maliciously to revenge a single one, especially in cas • s where we want ability to resist; not to an actual bearing of all gross outward injuries to our persons or estates, without resistance: which precept being given generally to all Christians; to Kings and Magistrates as well as Subjects, if it be strictly urged, prohibits Kings and Magistrates to resist the violence and injuries of the people, as much as the people, not to repulse the Armed violence and oppressions of their P • inces and Governors: and that Text of James 5. 6. Ye have condemned and killed the just, and he doth not resist you, (which some think is meant of Christ alone) proves only, that some just men, and many Martyrs have been condemned and killed without resistance, as our Savior was; not that it is unlawful to resist an open enemy, thief or murderer, who comes to kill, rob, or plunder us against Law and Conscience. I read of Saint Andrew, that when the people ran together in multitudes • o rescue him out of the hands of a wicked man, and defend him from the injury of death, he teaching them both by word and example, exhorted them, not to hinder his martyrdom; yet the people lawfully rescued innocent Jonathan, from that unjust death which his Father King Saul twice vowed he should undergo: Some men's patient suffering death and injuries without resistance, is no better an argument, that all therefore must so suffer without opposition, then that all men ought to yield their purses up to high-way thieves, or their persons, goods, ships, to Turks and Pirates, without fight or resistance, because some, yea many have shamefully done it for want of courage when they were able to resist, and so have deservedly lost their purses, ships, goods, liberties, and become Turkish Gally-slaves, to the ruin of their estates, bodies, souls, which miseries by a manfull just defense, they might have easily prevented. All which considered; I see no ground in Scripture, nor reason, but that temporal enemies of all kinds which wrongfully invade our persons or estates by open force of Arms in a warlike manner, may be resisted with temporal weapons, as well as spiritual enemies with spiritual Arms.

Eighthly, That which all Nations in all ages by the very light of nature have constantly [ 8] practiced, as just and lawful, must doubtless be lawful in point of conscience, if there be no Law of God to the contrary. But self-defense against invading Tyrants and their instruments hath by the very light of Nature been constantly practiced, by all Nations in all ages, as just and lawful, which the premises, the Appendix, the Histories of all ages evidence; there being never any one Nation or Kingdom for ought I find, that ever yet reputed it a thing unlawful in point of Conscience; to resist the open malicious destructive tyranny, violence, hostility of their unnatural Princes, or that desisted from any such resistance, giving themselves up willingly to their outrageous lusts and butch • ries, without any opposition (though some private men and Martyrs have sometimes done it, upon particular reasons, as to avoid the scandal of Religion; to bear witness to the truth, for the confirmation and conversion of others; or for want of power or opportunity to resist; or to avoid a general massacre of their fellow Christians, or because they were only a few private men; and their religion directly opposite to the Laws and government under which they lived, or the like, not because they judged all resistance simply unlawful, as blind Doctors • alsely inform us, which I shall prove hereafter;) and there is no Law of God at all to prohibit such resistance: therefore doubtless it must be lawful, even in point of conscience.

[ 9] Ninthly, that which is directly opposite to what is absolutely illegal, and unjust in point of conscience, and the chief lawful obstacle and remedy, to prevent or redress it, must certainly be just, be lawful in the court of Conscience, since that which is directly opposite to that which is • imply ill, and unjust, must necessarily be good and just. But necessary just defense by force of Arms, is directly opposite to that open Armed violence, and tyranny which is absolutely illegal and unjust in point of Conscience, and the chief lawful remedy and obstacle to prevent or redress it: as reason, experience and the premises evidence▪ Therefore it must necessarily be just and lawful, even in the Court of Conscience.

[ 10] Tenthly, That resistance which doth neither oppose the Kings royal person, nor lawful Authority; must certainly be lawful in point of conscience: But the resistance of the Kings Forces not accompanied with his person, in the execution of his unjust commands; is neither a resistance of his Royal person, (for that is absent, and his Cavaliers I hope are no Kings, nor yet invested with the privileges of Kings; nor yet of his lawful Authority;) his illegal Commissions and Commands, being mere nullities in Law, transferring no particle of his just Authority to those who execute them. Therefore it must certainly be lawful in point of conscience.

[ 11] Eleventhly, That resistance which is the only remedy to keep not only Kings themselves, but everyone of their Officers and Soldiers from being absolute Tyrants, Monarchs; and the deny all whereof, equalizeth every soldier, and particular Officer to Kings, yea God himself (whose prerogative only it is to have an absolute unresistable will;) must doubtless be lawful in the Court of Conscience. But this necessary defensive resistance now used by the Parliament and Subjects, is such: For if they may not resist any of the Kings Officers or Soldiers in their plunderings, rapines, fierings, sackings of Towns, beating, wounding, murthering the Kings leige people and the like; will not every common Soldier and Officer be an absolute Tyrant, equal in Monarchy to the great Turk himself, and • aramount the King, who hath no absolute irresistable Soveraignety in these particulars? Either therefore this resistance must be granted, not only as lawful, but simply necessary, else every officer and common Soldier wi • l be more than an absolute King and Monarch, every subject worse than a Turkish slave, and exposed to as many uncontrollable Sovereigns, as there are Soldiers in the Kings Army, be their conditions never so vile, their quality never so mean, and the greatest Peers on the Parliaments party, must be irresistibly subject to these new absolute Sovereigns lusts and wills.

[ 12] Twelfthly, if all these will not yet satisfy Conscience in the Lawfulnesse, the justness of the Parliaments and people's present forcible resistance of the Kings Captains and Forces, though Armed withan illegal Commission (which makes nothing at all in the case, because void in Law) there is this one Argument yet remaining which will satisfy the most scrupulous, malignant, opposite Conscience: That necessary forcible resistance which is Authorised, and Commanded by the Supreamest lawful power and highest Sovereign Authority in the Realm, must infallibly be just and lawful, even in point of Conscience, by the express Resolution of Rom. 13. and our opposites own confession; who have no other Argument to prove the Offensive war on the Kings part Lawfull, but because it is commanded; and the Parliaments and Subjects Defensive Arms Vnlawfull, but because prohibited by the King, whom they falsely affirm, to be the highest Sovereign power in the Kingdom, above the Parliament and whole Realm collectively considered. But this resistance of the Kings Popish malignant, invading Forces; is Authorized and Commanded by the express Votes and Ordinances of both Houses of Parliament, which I have already undeniably manifested, to be the Supreames • Lawfull Power, and Soveraignest Authority in the Realm, Paramount the King himself, who is but the Parliaments and Kingdoms Public Royal Servant for their good: therefore this Resistance must infallibly be just and Lawfull, even in Point of Conscience.

Thus much for the Lawfulnesse in Court of Conscience of resisting the Kings unjustly assaulting Forces, armed with his Commission: I now proceed to the justness of opposing them by way of forcible resistance when accompanied with his personal presence.

That the Kings Army of Papists and Malignants, invading the Parliaments or Subjects persons, goods, Laws, Liberties, Religion, may even in Conscience be justly resisted with force, though accompanied with his person, seems most apparently clear to me, not only by the preceeding Reasons, but also by many express Authorities recorded, and approved in Scripture, not commonly taken notice of: as,

First, By the ancientest precedent of a defensive war that we read of in the world, [ 1] Gen. 14. 1. to 24. where the five Kings of S • dom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Zoar, rebelling against Chedorlaomer King of Nations, after they had served him twelve years, defended themselves by arms and battle against his assaults, and the Kings joined with him: who discomfiting these five Kings, pillaging S • dom and Gomorrah, and taking Lot, and his goods along with them as a prey: hereupon Abraham himself, the Father of the faithful, in defense of his Nephew Lot, to rescue him and his substance from the enemy, taking with him 318. trained men of his own family, pursued Chedorlaomer, and the Kings with him, to Dan, assaulted them in the night, smote and pursued them unto Hoba, regained all the goods and prisoners, with his Nephew Lot, and restored both goods and persons freely to the King of Sodom, thereby justifying his and his people's forcible defense, against their invading enemies, in the behalf of his captivated plundered Nephew and Neighbors.

Secondly, by the Example of the Israelites, who were not only King Pharaoh his [ 2] Subjects but Bondmen too, as is evident by Exod, ch. 1. to 12. Deut. 6. 21. c. 7. 8. c. 15. 15. c. 16. 12. c. 24. 18. 22. Ezra. 9. 9. Now Moses and Aaron being sent by God to deliver them from their Egyptian bondage, after 430. years captivity, under color of demanding but three days liberty to go into the wilderness to serve the Lord, and Pharaoh, (notwithstanding all God's Miracles and Plagues,) refusing still to let them depart, till enforced to it by the slaughter of the Egyptians first borne; as soon as the Israelites were marching away, Pharaoh and the Egyptians, repenting of their departure, pursued them with their Chariots and Horses, and a great army even to the red Sea, to reduce them; hereupon the Israelites being astonished and murmuring against Moses, giving themselves all for dead men; Moses said unto the people fear ye not, stand still, and see the Salvation of the Lord, which he will show to you this day: for the Egyptians whom you have seen today, ye shall see them again no more forever, the Lord shall fight for you, &c. And hereupon God himself discomfited routed, and drowned them all in the red Sea: I would demand in this case, whether the Israelites might not here lawfully (for their own redemption from unjust bondage) have fought against and resisted their Lord, King Pharaoh, and his invading Host, accompanied with his presence, had they had power and hearts to do it, as well as God himself, who fought against and destroyed them on their behalf; If so, (as all men I think must grant, unless they will censure God himself) then a defensive war in respect of life and liberty only, is just and Lawfull even in conscience, by this most memorable story.

[ 3] Thirdly, by that example recorded Judges 3. 8. 9. 10. where God growing angry with the Israelites for their Apostasy and Idolatry, sold them (here was a divine title) into the hands of Cushan-Rishathaim King of Mesopotamia, and the children of Israel served him 8. years. Here was a lawful title by conquest and 8. years submission seconding it. But when the children of Israel cried unto the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer to them even Othniel, the son • e of Kenaz: and the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and he went out to war, and the Lord delivered Cushan-rishathaim King of Mesopotamia into his hands, and his hand prevailed against him, so the land had rest 40. years. Loe here a just defensive war approved and raised up by God and his Spirit (in an ordinary manner only, as I take it, by encouraging the Instruments) wherein a conquering King, for Redemption of former liberties, is not only resisted but conquered, taken prisoner, and his former dominion abrogated, by those that served him, as conquered subjects.

[ 4] Fourthly, by the example of Ehud, and the Israelites, Judges chap. 3. 11. to 31 where we find, God himself strengthening Eglon King of Moab against the Israelites for their sins, who thereupon gathering an Army smote Israel, possessed their Cities, so as the Israelites served this King 18. years. Here was a title by conquest, approved by God, submitted to by the Israelites: yet after all this, when the children of Israel cried unto the Lord, he raised them up a deliverer, namely Ehud, who stabbing Eglon the King in the belly, under pretext of private conference with him, and escaping; he thereupon blew the trumpet, commanded the Israelites to follow him to the war, slew ten thousand valiant men of Moab, which he subdued, and procured rest to his Country 40. years. God, his Spirit, Word, approving this his action.

[ 5] Fifthly, by the example of Barack and Deborah, Judges ch. 4. and 5. Where God selling the children of Israel for their sins into the band of Jabin King of Canaan, and his Captain Sisera, for 20. years space, during which he mightily oppressed them, hereupon Barack at the instigation of the Prophetess Deborah, by the command of the Lord God of Israel, gathered an Army of ten thousand men; which Sisera, and the King of Canaan hearing of, assembled all their Chariots and Army together, at the River of • ishon, where the Lord discomfited Sisera and all his Host, with the edge of the sword before Barack his Army, and subdued Jabin the King of Canaan, before the children of Israel: which war is by a special Song of Deborah and Barack highly extolled, and God in it, as most just and honorable: and this curse denounced against those that refused to assist in it, Judges 4. 23. Curse ye Meroz (saith the Angel of the Lord) curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof, because they came not out to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord, against the mighty; with this Corollary; so let all thine enemies p • rish O Lord: but let them that love thee be as the sun when it goet forth in his might. What more can conscience desire to justify the lawfulness of a just defensive war?

[ 6] Sixthly, by the Example of Gideon and the Israelites, Judges c. 6. Who being delivered by God into the hands of the Prince of Midian for seven years, Gideon by special encouragement and direction from God himself, with a poor despicable Army of 300. men, defeated the great Hoast of the Midianites, and took and slew their Princes. By these 4 last pregnant presidents, it is most evident, that a foreign King who hath gained a Title only by conquest (though with divine concurrence, by way of punishment for that people's sin) may lawfully be resisted, repulsed, even after some years forced subjection and submission to him, by the people conquered, to regain their former liberties.

Seventhly, by the precedent of Abimelech King of Shechem, who being elected [ 7] King by the voluntary assents of the people, God afterwards sending an evil spirit of division between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; thereupon they revolted from him, and choosing Gael for their Captain, fortified the City against him; and when Abimelech came with an Army to take in the Town, they in their defense, went forth and fought with him; resisted his seige; and they of the Tower of Shechem standing upon their guard refused to surrender it after the Town was surprised, and so were burnt. After which coming too near the walls, at the Tower of Thebez assaulted by Abimelech he had his brains and head so bruised with the piece of a millstone cast down upon him by a woman, that he called hastily to his Armor-bearer, and said unto him, draw thy sword and slay me, that men say not of me; a woman slew him: whereupon he thrust him through, that he died: and so every man departed to his place. Thus God rendered the wickedness of Abimelech, and all the evil of the men of Shechem upon their own heads, Judges 9. So the Text.

Eighthly, by the example of Iepthah, who after that God had sold the Isra • lites for [ 8] their Idolatry into the hands of the children of Ammon 18. years space, Iepthah being made head and Captain by the Elders and people of Gilead, first argued the case with the King of Ammon touching the unjustnesse of his war upon them, desiring God to be Judge between them; and then by God's assistance, smote and subdued the Ammonites and their Cities, Judge. c. 11. And so cast off their yoke.

Ninthly, By the practice of Sampson, who after God had delivered the Israelites [ 9] into the hands of the Philistines who ruled over them forty years space, did by God's extraordinary assistance oft encounter, slay and resist the Philistines, rescuing the oppressed Israelites from their vass • lage; and at his death slew more of them then in his life, Judge. c. 13. to 17. which deliverance was afterwards perfected by Samuel, 1 Sam 7. and approved, nay, wrought by God.

Tenthly, by the Example of David, who being persecuted by • edifragous dissembling [ 10] King Saul his father-in-law (a notable pattern of the inconstancy and invaliditie of Kings solemnest oaths and Protestations:) who contrary to many solemn vows and feigned reconciliations, sought unjustly to deprive him of his life; thereupon David retired from the Court, entertained a guard of four hundred men, and became a Captain over them. 1 Sam. 22. 2. After which Abiather escaping to him from Nob when the Priests there were slain by Doeg, upon Saul's command, for David's sake, David used these words to him. Abide thou with me, fear not, for • e that seeketh thy life seeketh my life, but with me thou shalt be in safeguard, 1 Sam. 22. 23. Soone after the Philistines beseiging Keilah, David by God's encouragement, smote them and saved Keilah; intending there to secure himself and his men: which Saul hearing of, said; God hath delivered him into my hands, for he is shut in by • ntring into a Town which hath gates and bars, whereupon he called all the people together to beseige David and his men: (which he needed not do, did he or any else believe, that they would not, ought not to have made any forcible resistance:) David informed hereof; inquired seriously of God, whether Saul would certainly come down? and demanded twice of him • will the men of Keila • deliver me and my men up in • o his hand? And the Lord said, they will deliver thee up. Had not David and his men resolved to fortify and defend themselves there, if the men of Ke • lah would have been faithful to them, and believed they might have resisted Saul with his Forces, certainly he would never have presumed to ask such a question twice together of God himself, to receive his resolution therein, neither would God have vouchsafed an answer thereto: but his double inquiry, and God's resolution, infallibly demonstrate his intention to resist, and the lawfulness of his defensive resistance, would the Keilites have adhered to him. This the very next words fully clear, 1 Sam. 23. 13. Then David and his men, about six hundred a rose, and departed out of Keilah, an • went wheresoever they could go, and it was told Saul, that David was escaped from K • ilah: God's prediction of the Keilites treachery was the only cause of their departure thence, where they had resolved to defend themselves, of which hope being disappointed beyond expectation, they went whithersoever they could go. After which David and his men being but few in number, not able in human probability, without tempting God, to encounter Saul's great Forces, retired themselves into woods, mountains, rocks, strong holds, wildernesses; where Saul pursuing them, they still declined him: but had he and his army ever assaulted them, no doubt they would and might lawfully have defended themselves, else why did they join themselves in a body? why retire to strong holds, and places of advantage? why twice urge David to kill Saul in cold blood, when he did not actually assault him, but came casually unawares within his danger? Why did David himself say, even when he spared his life when he was a sleep, 1 Sam. 26. 10. As the Lord liveth, the Lord shall smite him, or his day shall come to die, or he shall descend into battle and perish? but that if he had given him battle, he might have defended himself against him, though Saul should casually or willfully perish in the fight? And why was David so importunate to go up against him with King Achish to the battle wherein he perished, 1 Sam. 29. were resistance of him, in case he assaulted him, and his Forces, utterly unlawful? This precedent of David then, if rightly weighed, is very punctual, to prove the justness of a defensive war, (of which mor • anon) and no evidence at all against it.

[ 11] Eleventhly, by the practice of the 10. Tribes: who after their revolt from Rehoboam for giving them an harsh indiscreet answer to their just demands, setting up another King and Kingdom, even by divine approbation; Rehoboam thereupon raising a great Army to fight against and reduce them to his obdience; God himself by Semaiah the Prophet, sent this express inhibition to Rehoboam and his Army: Thus saith the Lord, ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren return every man to his house, FOR THIS IS DONE OF ME: Whereupon the obeyed the Word of the Lord and returned: 1 Kings 12. 2 Chron. c. 10. and 11. After which long war continued between these Kingdoms by reason of this revolt, wherein the ten Tribes and Kings of Israel still defended themselves with open force, and that justly, as the Scripture intimates 2 Chron. 12. 14. 15. though that Jeroboam and the Israelites falling to Idola • y, were afterwards (for their Idolatry, not revolt) defeated by Abiah and the men of Judah, who relied upon God, 2 Chron. 13.

Twelfthly, by the example of the King of Moab and his people, who Rebelling [ 12] against Jehoram King of Israel, and refusing to pay the annual Tribute of Lambes and Rammes, formerly rendered to him; hereupon Jehoram, Jehoshaphat, and the King of Edom, raising a great Army to invade them, the Moa • ites hearing of it, gathered all that were able to put on Armor, and upward, and stood in the border to resist them. 2 King. 3. 4. to 27. And by the practice of the Ed • mites, who revolting from under the hand of Judah, made a King over themselves: Whereupon Joram King of Iud • h going up with his Forces against them to Zair, they encompassed him, in their own defense; and though they fled into their Tents, yet they revolted from Judah till this day, and Libnah too, 2 Kings 8. 20 21. 22.

Thirteenthly, by the example of Samaria, which held out 3. years siege against [ 13] Shalmanezer King of Assyria, notwithstanding their King Hoshea had by force submitted himself and his Kingdom to him, and became his servant. 2 Kings 17. 3. to 10. c. 18. 9. 10.

Fourteenthly, by the practice of godly Hezekiah, who after the Lord was with him [ 14] and prospered him whithersoever he went, REBELLED against the King of Assyria, and served him not (as some of his predecessors had done) 2 Kings 18. 7. whereupon the King of Assyria, and his Captains coming up against him with great Forces, and invading his Country, he not only fortified his Cities, and encouraged his people manfully to withstand them to the uttermost, but actually resisted the Assyrians even by divine direction and encouragement; and upon his prayer, God himself by his Angel for his and Jerusalem's preservation, miraculously sl • w in the Campe of the King of Assyria in one night, an hundred fourscore and five thousand mighty men of valor, Captains and Leaders; so as he returned with shame of face to his own Land, 2 King. c. 18. and 19. 2 Chron. c. 32. Isaiah c. 36. and 37. An Example doubtless lawful beyond exception, ratified by God himself and his Angel too.

Fifteenthly, by the examples of King Jehoiakim, and Iehoiakin, who successively [ 15] rebelling against the King of Babylon who subdued and put them to a tribute, did likewise successively defend themselves against his invasions, seiges though with ill success, by reason of their gross Idolatries and other sins, (not of this their revolt and defense to regain their freedoms, condemned only in Ze • echia, for breach of his oath;) whereby they provoked God to give them up to the will of their enemies, and to remove them out of his sight, 2 King. c. 24. & 25 2 Chr. 36. Ier. c. 37. & 38 & 39.

Finally, by the History of the Maccabees and wholestate of the Jews defensive wars under them, which though but Apochryphall in regard of the compiler, yet no doubt they had a divine Spirit concurring with them in respect of the managing and Actors in them. I shall give you the sum thereof, very succinctly. Antiochus Epiphanes conquering Jerusalem, spoiled it and the Temple, set up Heathenish customs and Idolatry in it, subverted God's worship, destroyed the Books of God's Law, forced the people to forsake God, to sacrifice to Idols, slew and persecuted all that opposed, and exercised all manner of Tyranny against them. Hereupon Mattathias a Priest and his Sons, moved with a godly zeal, refusing to obey the Kings Command in falling away from the Religion of his Fathers, slew a Jew that sacrificed to an Idol in his presence, together with the Kings Commissary, who compelled men to Sacrifice, and pulled down their Idolatrous Altar; which done they fled into the mountains, whither all the will-affected Jews repaired to them. Whereupon the Kings Forces hearing the premises pursued them, and warred against them on the Sabbath day; whereupon they out of an over-nice superstition least they should profane the Sabbath by fighting on it when assaulted, answered them not, neither cast a stone at them, nor stopped the places where they were hid, but said, let us die all in our innocence; heaven and earth shall testify for us, that you put us to death wrongfully, whereupon they slew both them, their wives, and children, without resistance, to the number of a thousand persons. Which Mattathias and the rest of their friends hearing of, mourned for them right sore, and said one to another (mark their speech) if we all do as our brethren have done, and fight not for our lives, and Laws against the Heathen, they will now quickly root us out of the earth; therefore they decreed, saying; whosoever shall come to make battle with us on the Sabbath day, we will fight against him, neither will we do all as our brethren, that were murdered in their secret places. Whereupon they presently gathered and united their Forces, assaulted their enemies, recovered their Cities, Laws, Liberties; defended themselves manfully, and fought many battles with good success against the several kings who invaded and laid claim to their Country, as you may read at large in the books of Maccabees. All these examples, (most of them managed by the most pious, religious persons of those days, prescribed and assisted by God himself, whose Spirit specially encouraged, strengthened the hands and Spirits of the undertakers of them (as O fiander well observes,) and therefore cannot be condemned as unjust, without blasphemy and impiety:) in my opinion are a most clear demonstration of the lawfulness of a defensive war (in point of Divinity and Conscience) against Kings and their Armies who wrongfully invade or assault their Subjects, though themselves be personally present in their armies, to countenance their unlawful wars; and likewise evidence, that a Royal title gotten forcibly by conquest only, though continued sundry years, is not so valid in point of conscience, but that it may be safely questioned, yea rejected; there being no true lawful Title of Soveraignety over any people, but that which originally depends upon their own free election, and unconstrained subjection simply considered, or which is subsequently seconded therewith after a possession got by force or conquest.

Now that the kings personal presence cannot justify the unjust actions, or protect the persons of those that assist him in any unlawful action contrary to the Laws of God, or the Realm, is a truth so evident, that it needs no proof, it being no part of the kings Royal prerogative or Office, but diametrally repugnant to it, either to do injury himself, or to authorize, or protect others in committing it, as I have elsewhere proved at large. Therefore it can administer no patronage nor defense at all to those who accompany his person in the unjust invasions of his Subjects, nor dis-able them to defend or repulse their unjust assaults and rapines. For suppose a King should so far degenerate and dishonor himself, as personally to accompany a pack of thieves who should rob his subjects on the high way, break up their houses in the night, or practice Piracie on the Sea, or commit Rapes or murders on his people every where; I think no man so void of Reason, Law, Conscience, but would readily grant, that the Subjects in all these cases might lawfully defend themselves by force against these Robbers, Thieves, Murderers, notwithstanding the Kings presence or association with them, whose personal Prerogatives, and immunity from assaults or violence being incommunicable, underivable to any other, and peculiar to himself alone, he can transfer no such protection to others who accompany him in their injurious practices; and that these Acts of theirs are direct fellonie and murder, for which they might be justly apprehended, condemned, executed, though thus countenanced by the Kings own presence. And if this be truth (as our Law-books resolve, and the Scripture to in places forecited) the kings presence can no more deprive the subjects of their necessary just defense against his Popish Forces assaults, nor justify their proceedings, or the present unjust offensive war, then in the former cases, there being the self-same reason in both; wars being in truth, but greater and more detestable Murders, and Robberies, when they are unjust, as Cyprian, Augustine, with others rightly define.

Thirdly, personal un • ust assaults and violence even of Kings themselves may in some cases lawfully be resisted by subjects; This Doctor Ferne himself acknowledgeth, Sect. 2. p. 9. Personal defense is lawful against the sudden (much more then against the premeditated) and illegal assaults of such Messengers of the King; yea, OF THE PRINCE HIMSELFE THUS FARRE, to ward his blows, to hold his hands and the like: not to endanger his person, not to return blows; no: for though it be natural to defend • man's self, yet the whole common-wealth is concerned in his person: the king therefore himself, (much more in his Cavaliers) may thus far at least safely be resisted in point of conscience. And that he may be so indeed is manifest by two pregnant Scripture examples, The first is that of King Saul, 1 Sam 14. 38. to 46. where Jonathan and his Armor-bearer, routing the Philistines whole Army, violated his Father Saul's command, of which he was wholly ignorant in taking a little honey one the end of his stick in the pursuit; hereupon king Saul, most rashly and unjustly vowed twice one after another, to put him to death: whereupon the people much discontented with this injustice, were so far from submitting to the Kings pleasure in it, that they presently said to the king: shall Jonathan die, who hath wrought so great Salvation in Israel? God forbid: As the Lord liveth there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground, So the people RESCVED IONATHAN that he died not; though he were not only King Saul's Subject, but Son too. Indeed it appears not in the Text, that Saul offered any violence to Jonathan's person, or the people to Saul's: and it may be the people's peremptory vow and unanimous resolution to defend Jonathan, from this unjust sentence of death against him, made Saul desist from his vowed bloody intendment: but the word rescued, with other circumstances in the story, seem to intimate, that Jonathan was in hold to be put to death, and that the people forcibly rescued him, out of the executioners hands. However, certainly their vow and speeches declare, that if Saul himself or any other by his command had assaulted Jonathan to take away his life, they would have forcibly resi • ted them and preserved his life, though with loss of their own, believing they might lawfully do it, else they would not have made this resolute vow; nor could they have performed it, had Saul willfully proceeded, but by a forcible rescue and resistance of his personal violence. The other is that of king Uzziah, 2 Chron. 27. 1 • . to 22. who presumptuously going into the Temple against God's Law, to burn incense on the Altar, Azariah the high Priest, and with him fourscore Priests of the Lord, that were valiant men went in after him, and WITHS • OOD (or resisted) Uzziah the king; and said unto him; It appertaineth not unto thee Uzziah to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the Priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrate • d to burn incense: go out of the Sanctuary for thou hast trespassed, neither shall it be for thine honor from the Lord God. Then Uzziah was wroth, and had a censor in his hand to burn incense, and whiles he was wroth with the Priests, the Leprosy rose up in his forehead: And Azariah, and all the Priests looked upon him, and behold he was Leprous in his forehead: AND THEY THRVST HIM OUT FROM THENCE; yea himself hasted also to go out, because the Lord had smitten him. If then these Priests thus actually resisted king Uzziah in this sinful Act, thrusting him perforce out of the Temple, when he would but offer incense; much more might they, would they have done it, had he violently assaulted their persons. If any king shall unjustly assault the persons of any private Subjects, men or women, to violate their lives or chastities (over which they have no power) I make no doubt, that they may and ought to be resisted, repulsed, even in point of conscience, but not slain; though many kings have lost their lives, upon such occasions: as Rodoaldus the 8. king of Lumbardy Anno 659. being taken in the very act of adultery by the adulteresses husband, was slain by him without delay; and how kings attempting to murder private Subjects unjustly, have themselves been sometimes wounded, and casually slain, is so rise in stories, that I shall forbear examples: concluding this with the words of ^t Josephus, who expressly writes. That the king of the Israelites (by God's express Law, Deut. 17.) was to do nothing without the consent of the high Priest and Senate, nor to multiply money and horses over much, which might easily make him a contemner of the Laws; and if he addicted himself to these things more than was fitting, HE WAS TO BE RESISTED, least he became more powerful then was expedient for their affairs.

To these Authorities, I shall only subjoin these 5. undeniable arguments to justify Subjects necessary defensive wars, to be lawful in point of conscience against the persons and Forces of their injuriously invading Sovereigns.

[ 1] First, it is granted by all as a truth irrefragable, that kings by Force of Arms may justly with safe conscience, resist, repulse, suppress the unlawful warlike invasive assaults, the Rebellious armed Insurrections of their Subjects, upon these two grounds, because they are unlawful by the Edicts of God and man; and because kings in such cases, have no other means left to preserve their Royal persons, and just authority against offensive armed Rebellions, but offensive arms: Therefore Subjects by the self-same grounds, may justly with safe consciences resist, repulse, suppress the unjust assailing military Forces of their kings in the case fore-stated, though the king himself be personally present and assistant, because such a war is unlawful by the resolution of God and men, and against the oath, the duty of kings: and because the subjects in such cases have no other means left to preserve their persons, lives, liberties, estates, religion, established government from certain ruin, but defensive Arms, There is the self same reason in both cases, being relatives, therefore the selfsame Law and Conscience in both.

[ 2] Secondly, It must be admitted without debate; that this office of highest and greatest trust, hath a condition in Law annexed to it (by Littletons own resolution) to wit, that the King shall well and truly preserve the Realm, and do that which to such Office belongeth; which condition our king by an express oath to all his people solemnly taken at their Coronation, with other Articles expressed in their oath (formerly recited) is really bound both in Law and Conscience exactly to per • orme, being admitted and elected king by the people's suffrages upon solemn promise, to observe the same condition to the uttermost of his power, as I have elsewhere cleared. Now it is a clear case resolved by Marius Salamonius, confirmed at large by Rebussus by 12. unanswerable reasons, the Authorities of sundry Civil Lawyers, and Canonists quoted by him; agreed by Alberi • us Gentilis, and Hugo Grotius, who both largely dispute it; That Kings as well as Subjects are really bound to perform their Covenants, Contracts, Conditions, especially those they make to all their Subjects, and ratify with an Oath; since God himself who is most absolute, is yet most fi • mely obliged by his O • thes and Covenants made to his despicable vile • reatures, sin • ull men; and never violates them in the lea •• degree. If then these conditions and Oaths be firm and obligatory to our kings; if they will obstinately break them, by violating their Subjects Laws, Liberties, Properties, and making actual war upon them; the condition and Oath too would be merely void, ridiculous, absurd, an high t • king of the Name of God in vain, yea a plain delusion of the people, if the whole▪ State or people in their own defense might not justly take up Arms, to resist their kings and their malignant Forces in these per • idious violations of trust, conditions, oaths; and force them to make good their oaths and covenants, when no other means will induce them to it. Even as the Subjects oath of homage and allegiance would be merely frivolous, if kings had no means nor coercive power to cause them to observe these oaths, when they are apparently broken: and many whole kingdoms had been much overseen in point of Policy, or prudence, in prescribing such conditions and oaths unto their kings, had they reserved no lawful power at all which they might lawfully exercise in point of conscience, to see them really performed and duly redressed, when notoriously transgressed, through willfulness, negligence, or ill pernicious advice.

Thirdly, when any common or public trust is committed to three or more, though [ 3] of subordinate and different quality, if the trust be either violated or betrayed, the inferior trustees, may and ought in point of Conscience to resist the other. For instance; if the custody of a City or Ca • tle be committed to a Captain, Lieutenant, and common Soldiers: or of a ship to the Master, Captain, and ordinary Mariners: If the Captain or Master will betray the City, Castle, or ship to the enemy or Pirates; or dismantle the City walls and fortifications to expose it unto danger, or will willfully run the ship against a rock to split, wreck it, and endanger all their lives, freedoms, contrary to the trust reposed in them; or fire or blow up the City, Fort, ship: not only the Lieutenant Masters Mate, and other inferior Officers, though subject to their commands, but even the Common Soldiers and Mariners may withstand and forcibly resist them, and are bound in Conscience so to do, because else they should betray their trust, and destroy the City, Fort, ship, and themselves too, which they are bound by duty and compact to preserve. This case of Law and conscience is so clear, so common in daily experience that no man doubts it: The care and safety of our Realm by the original political constitution of it, always hath been and now is, committed jointly to the king, the Lord's, and Commons in Parliament, by the unanimous consent of the whole kingdom. The king the supreme member of it, contrary to the trust and duty reposed in him, through the advise of evil Counselors willfully betrays the trust and safety of this great City and ship of the Republic; invades the inferior Commanders, Soldiers, Citizens, with an Army: assaults, wounds, flayes, spoils, plunders, sacks, imprisons his fellow trustees, Soldiers, Mariners, Citizens, undermines the walls, fires the City, ship, delivers it up to thieves, Pirates, murderers, as a common prey, and willfully runs this ship upon a rock of ruin. If the Lord's and Commons jointly entrusted with him, should not in this case by force of Arms resist him, and his unnatural instruments, (there being no other means else of safety left them) they should sinfully and willfully betray their trust, and be so far from keeping a good Christian Conscience in not resisting by force, that they should highly sin against Conscience, against their trust and duty, against their natural Country, yea and their very Allegiance to the king himself, by encouraging him in, and consenting unto these proceedings, which would make him not to be a king, but Tyrant, and destroy him as a king, in the spoil and ruin of his Kingdom, thereby endangered to be consumed) and tempt God himself: as Pope Nicholas, and Gratian resolve in these words. If there be no necessity we ought at all times to abstain from wars, but if inevitable necessity urge us, we ought not to abstain from wars, and warlike preparations for the defense of ourselves, of our Country, and paternal Laws, no not in Lent, least man should seem to tempt God, if when he hath means, he provide not for his own and others safety, and prevents not the Detriments of holy religion.

Fourthly, those injuries which Allies and other neighbor States or Princes may with good Conscience repulse with Arms from Subjects wrongfully oppressed, invaded tyrannically by their Sovereigns, or their wicked Instruments, at, or without the Subjects entreaty, when they are unable to relieve themselves: no doubt the Subjects themselves, if able, may with better reason, and as good Conscience resist and repel; because every man is nearer, and more obliged to defend and preserve himself and those of his own Nation, Religion, blood, then strangers are, and may with less public danger, inconvenience, and more speed effect it, then Foreigners: but Allies and Forraigne Neighbor States and Princes, as Gratian (out of the 5. Council of Carthage; Augustine, Ambrose, Hier • m, Anastatius, Calistus and other) Albericus Gentilis, John Bodin, Hug • Grotius, and Generally all Canonists, Casuists, Schoolmen accord, may in many cases with good conscience, by force of Arms repulse from Subjects wrongfully oppressed, invaded, and tyrannically abused, the injuries offered them by their Sovereigns; and that either at, and in some cases without the Subjects entreaty: Which they prove by Moses his slaying the Egyptian that oppressed the Hebrew, Exod. 2. 11. to 15. by Joshua his aiding of the Gibeonites against the five Kings that made war against them, Josh. 10. by the example of Jehoshaphat, 1 Kin. 22, 2 Kings 3. Of the chief Captains securing Paul with a gard of Soldiers against the Jews who had vowed his death, Acts 23. by Abraham's rescuing Lot, Gen. 14. by sundry ancient and late Examples in story. Therefore Subjects themselves no doubt if able, may with good reason and conscience, lawfully resist, and repel their Princes invading Forces, though accompanied, assisted with his personal presence.

Fifthly, It is yielded by all Divines, Lawyers, Canonists, Schoolmen; as Gratian, Ban • es, S • to, Lessius, Vasquius, Covaruvi • s, Aquinas, Sylvester, Bartolus, Baldus, Navarre, Albericus Gentilis, Grotius and others, that private men by the Law of God, and nature, may in defense of their lives, chastities, principal members, and estates, lawfully resist all those who forcibly assault them, to deprive them thereof; yea and slay them to, unless they be public persons of eminency, by whose slaughter the Commonwealth should sustain much prejudice, whose lives in such cases must not be willingly hazarded, though their violence be resisted: which is clearly proved by Judges 11. 8. 15. to 18. 1 Sa • . 17 41. to 53. Deut. 22. 26. 27. since therefore all these are apparently endangered by an invasive war and Army, more then by any private assaults; and no aid, no assistance or protection against the loss of life, chastity, estate, and other violences, injuries which accompany wars can be expected from the Laws, or Prince himself (the fountain of this injustice,) or legal punishments inflicted on the malefactors, whose armed power being above the reach of common justice, and injuries countenanced, abetted, authorised by the Sovereign who should avenge and punish them, every subject in particular, and the whole state in Parliament assembled in general, may and ought in point of conscience jointly and severally to defend themselves, their neighbors, brethren, but especially their native Country, Kingdom, whose general safety is to be preferred before the lives of any particular persons, how great or considerable soever, which may be casually hazarded by their own willfulness, though not purposely endangered or cut off in the defensive encounter, by those who make resistance. And if (according to Cajetan and other Schoolmen,) Innocents which only casually hinder ones • light from a mortal enemy may be lawfully with good conscience slain by the party pursued, in case where he cannot else possibly escape the loss of his own life, because every man's ownelife is dearer to him then another's, which he here takes away only to preserve his ownelife, without any malicious murderous intent, though others doubt of this case: or if innocent persons set perforce in the front of unjust assailants (as by the Cavalleir • s at Brainford and elsewhere,) to prevent defense, and wrong others with more security and less resistance, may casually be slain, (though not intentionally) by the defensive party (as I think they may) for prevention of greater danger and the public safety; then certainly those of public place and Note; who willfully and unnaturally set themselves to ruin their Country, Liberty, Religion, Innocent brethren (who only act the defensive part,) and voluntarily intrude themselves into danger, may questionless with safe conscience be resisted, repulsed: in which if they casually chance to lose their lives without any malice or ill intention in the defe • dants, it being only through their own default, such a casual accident when it happens, or the remote possibility of it in the combat before it begins, cannot make the resistance either unjust or unlawful in point of conscience; for then such a possibility of danger to a public person should make all resistance unlawful, deprive the Republic wholly of this only remedy against tyrannical violence, and expose the whole common-weal to ruin, whose weal and safety, is to be preferred before the life or safety of any one member of it whatsoever.

Having thus at large evinced the lawfulness of Subjects necessary forcible resistance, & defensive wars against the unjust offensive Forces of their Sovereigns; I shall in the next place answer the principal arguments made against it, some whereof (for ought I find) are yet unanswered.

These Objections are of four sorts, out of the Old Testament, the New; from reason, from the example of the primitive Christians, backed with the words of some Fathers; I shall propound and answer them in order.

The first out of the Old Testament, is that of Numb. 16. Korah, Dathan, and Abiram for their insurrection against that very divine Authority which God himself had delegated to Moses and Aaron, without any injury or injustice at all once offered to them or any assault upon them. Ergo (mark the Non-sense of this argumentation) no Subjects may lawfully take up mere necessary defensive Arms in any case to resist the bloody Tyrannie, Oppression, and outrages of wicked Princes, or their Cavalleires, when they make war 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 Captain 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 turns a thief or murderer, and felloniously assaults him, to rob him of his purse, or cut his throat. Or, private men must not causelessly mutiny against a lawful Magistrate for doing justice and performing his duty: Ergo the whole Kingdom in Parliament may not in Conscience resist the Kings Captains and Cavalleeres, when they most unnaturally and impiously assault them to take away their Lives, Liberties, Privileges, Estates, Religion, oppose and resist justice, and bring the whole Kingdom to utter desolation. The very recital of this argument is an ample satisfactory refutation of it, with this addition. These seditious Levites Rebelled against Moses and Aaron, only because God himself had restrained them from meddling with the Priests Office which they would contemptuously usurp, and therefore were most severely punished by God himself, against whose express Ordinance they Rebelled: Ergo, the Parliament and Kingdom may in no case whatsoever, though the King be bent to subvert God's Ordinances, Religion, Laws, Liberties, make the least resistance against the king or his invading forces, under pain of Rebellion, High Treason, and eternal condemnation, This is Doctor Fernes and some others, Bedlam Logic, & Divinity.

The next is this, Thou shalt not revile the God's, 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 equity.) Ergo it is unlawful for the Subjects to defend themselves against the Kings Popish depopulating Cavaliers.

I answer, the first text pertains 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 Judges nor underrulers, 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, Laws, Liberties: as that the King and his Soldiers jointly or severally considered, may not be resisted: yea, these acute disputants may argue further by this new kind of Logic: Christians are expressly prohibited to curse or revile any man whatsoever, under pain of damnation, Rom. 12. 14. Mat. 5 • 44. Levite. 19. 14. Numb. 23. 7. 8. 2 Sam. 16. 9. Levite. 20. 9. c. 24. P 1. 14. 23. Levite. 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 thief that would rob us, cut-throat Cavaliers that would murder us, lechers that would ravish us) under pain of damnation. What pious profitable Doctrine, think you, is this: All cursings and railings are simply unlawful in themselves: all resistance is not so, especially that necessary we now discourse of, against unlawful violence to ruin Church and State. To argue therefore, all resistance is simply unlawful, because cursing and reviling (of a different nature) are so, is ill Logic, and worse Divinity. If the objectors will limit their resi • tance, (to make the Argument sensible,) and propose it thus: All cursing and r • viling of Kings and Rulers for executing justice impartially (for so is the chief intendment of the place objected, delinquents being apt to clamour against those who justly censure them) is unlawful; Ergo the forcible resisting of them in the execution of justice and their lawful authority is unlawful: the sequel I shall grant, but the Argument will be wholly impertinent, which I leave to the Objectors to refine.

The third Argument is this: That which peculiarly belongs to God, no man without his special authority ought to meddle with: But taking up Arms peculiarly belongeth to be Lord. Deut. 32. 35. Where the Lord saith, vengeance is mine: especially the sword, which of all temporal vengeance is the greatest.

The Objector puts no Ergo, or conclusion to it, because it concludes nothing at all to purpose, but only this. E • go, The King and Cavalleeres must lay down their Arms and swords, because God never gave them any special commission to take them up. Or, Ergo, no man but God must wear a sword, at least of revenge; and whether the kings and Cavalleers Offensive, or the Parliaments mere 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 council thee to keep the Kings Commandment and that in regard of the Oath of God: Be not hasty to go out of his sight, stand not in an evil 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 virtue of the Oaths of supremacy, alleigance, and the late protestation including them both: Ergo, by virtue of these Oaths we must not resist his Cavalleeres, but yield our thoates to their swords, our purses and estates to their rapines, our chastities to their Lecheries, our Liberties to their Tyrannies, our Laws 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 oaths of ours, obleige us only, to obey the Kings just legal commands and no other, not the Commands and lusts of evil Counselors and Soldiers, 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 only unto God, the next antecedent; who only doth and may do what he pleaseth, and that both in heaven and earth, Psal. 135. 6. Psal. 115. 3 Isaiah 46. 10. not to Kings who neither may nor can do what they please in either, being bound both by the Laws of God, man, and their Coronation Oaths (perchance the oath of God here meant, rather then that of supremacy or alleigance) to do only what is lawful 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 do what he pleaseth: but he doth whatsoever pleaseth him: Solom • n himself committed idolatry, built Temples for Idolatrous worship, served his idolatrous wives God's, married with many idolatrous wives, grievously oppressed his people, &c. for which God threatened to rent the kingdom from himself, as he did the ten Tribes from his son, for those sins of his: David committed adultery, and willfully numbered the people; and what King Jeroboam, Manasseh, Ahab, other wicked Kings have done, out of the pleasure and freedom of their lawless wills, to the infinite dishonor of God, the ruin of themselves, their posterities, Kingdoms, is sufficiently apparent in Scripture: was all therefore just, lawful, unblameable, because they did herein whatsoever they pleased, not what was pleasing to God? If not, as all must grant: then your foundation fails; that Kings may lawfully do whatsoever they will; and Solomon's words must be taken all together not by fragments; and these latter words coupled with the next preceeding; Stand not in an evil matter: and then Paul's words will well interpret his, Rom. 13. 4. But if thou do that which is evil be afraid, for he beareth not the sword in vain, for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon them that do evil. So that the genuine sense of the place is, and must be this. Stand not in an evil matter, for the king hath an absolute power to do whatsoever he pleaseth, in way of justice to punish thee, if thou continue obstinate in thy evil courses; to pardon thee, if thou confess, submit, and crave pardon for them. Ergo, the king and his Cavalleeres have an absolute power to murder, 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 Job 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 Kingdom 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 truly conclude from hence; If the king should command us to say Mass in his Chapel, or our Parishes, to adorn Images, to turn professed Mass-priests, &c. to vent any Erronious Popish Doctrines; to pervert the Scriptures to support Tyrannie and lawless cruelty: we must and will (as some of us do) cheerfully 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 throats, fire their houses, sack their Cities, subvert their liberties; and (as Bellarmine puts the case of the Popes absolute irresistible authority) send millions of souls to hell; yet no man under pain of damnation, may or ought to demand of him, Domine cur ita facis? Sir, what do you? But was this the holy Ghosts meaning think you, in this place? If so, then Nathan was much to blame for reprehending king David's Adultery, Azariah and the 40. Priests who withstood King Uzziah when he would have offered incens • , on the incense Altar, and thrust him out of the Temple, telling him, it pertaineth not to thee Uzziah, to burn incense to the Lord, &c. Were no less then Traitors. John the Baptist was much over-seen to tell King Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brothers wife. The Prophet who sharply reprehended Amaziah for his Idolatry and new altar, 2 Chron 25. 15. 16. was justly checked by the king, El • iah was to be rebuked, for telling Ahab so plainly of his faults, and sending such a harsh message to King Abaziah; 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, • Sam. 13 3. 2 Chron. 15. 9. The meaning therefore of this Text, so much mistaken, (unless we will censure all these Prophets, and have Kings not only irresistible but irreprehensible for their wickedness) is only this: No man may presume to question the kings just actions, warranted by his lawful royal 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 Judicature and Sovereign Power in the Kingdom) 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 anointed. Ergo the King and his Cavaliers must not be so much as touched nor • esisted, I wonder they did not as well argue, Ergo none must henceforth kiss his Majesty's hand (si • ce it cannot be done without touching him,) neither must his Barber trim him, nor his Bedchamber • men attire him, for fear of high Treason in touching him: And the Cavaliers must not henceforth be arrested for their debts, apprehended for their robberies and murders; neither must the Chyrurgi • n dress 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-dammee • . Such conclusions had been more literal and genuine then the first.

But to answer this long since exploded trivial Objection, not named by Dr Ferne, though revived by others since him. I say first, that this Text concerns not kings at all, but the true anointed Saints of God their Subjects, whom kings have been always apt to oppress and persecute, witness Psal. 2. • . &c. Act 4. 26. 27. Act. 12. 1, 2, 3 with all sacred and Ecclesiastical Histories, ancient or moderne. This is most apparent; first, because these words were spoken by God to Kings themselves, as the Text is express, Psal 105 14, 15. 1 Chron. 16. 20. 21. He suffered no man to do them wrong, but reproved even KINGS for their sak • s saying, (even to king themselves, namely to king Pharaoh, an king Abimelech, 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, Jacob, their wives and families, as it is evident by Verse 6. the whole series of the Psalm, which is Historical; the forecited Te • ts of Genesis to which the words relate, the punctual confession of Augustine, and all other Expositors on this Psalm; Now neither they, nor their wives, nor their children clearly, were actual, much less anointed Kings; For first, they lived long before the government of kings was erected among the Israelites, of whom Saul was the first. 2. They had no kingdom nor territories of their own when these words were uttered, but were strangers in the Land, going from one Nation and Kingdom to another, sojourning obscurely like Pilgrims and Strangers upon earth, in Egypt, and Gerar, under King Pharaoh, Abimelech, and other Princes, not as kings, but subjects and pri • ate men, as Verse 12. 13. Gen. 12. and 20. and 26 Chap. 36. 7. Chap. 37. 1. Deut. 23. 7. Hebr. 11. 13. resolve. Thirdly, They were but very few men in number, Verse 12. Genesis 34. 30. they were Masters only of their own small families, and that under foreign Kings▪ therefore doubtless no kings at all. Fourthly, this was spoken of these Patriarchs Wives and Families, as well as of themselves, (and they certainly were no kings, unless you will have kingdoms consisting only of kings, and no subjects at all) Verse 12. 14. Gen. 12. 15. to 20. Chap. 20. 2. to 17. Chap. 26. 11. Chap. 34. 30. Chap. 35. 6. Fifthly, the Scripture nowhere calls them kings, much less the Text, which terms them expressly Prophets, Touch not mine Anointed, and do MY PROPHETS (not properly so taken, but largely, that is, My servants, my chosen people, as Verse 6. expounds it) no harm: The later Clause, Do my Prophets no harm, being an exact interpretation of the former, Touch not mine Anointed, that is, My Prophets and Servants, so far forth as to do them harm; For in a common sense, no doubt, they might be touched without offense to God or them, by way of embracement, assistance, and the like. Sixthly, Though there were kings in Abraham's days or before, as is evident by Gen. 14. 1, 2, &c. yet there were no anointed kings, nor were kings ever called God's anointed till Saul's days, who was the first anointed King I read of, 1 Sam. 10. 1. and the first king ever styled, The Lord's Anointed, 1 Sam. 12. 3, 5. whereas Priests were anointed long before, Exodus 30. 30. Chap. 40. 13, 15. Therefore Anointed in the Text cannot be meant of kings, or of persons actually anointed, but only of those Saints of God, who were metaph • rically and spiritually anointed, having the gifts and graces of God's Spirit, Psal. 28, 8, 9. Hab. 3. 13. 2. Cor. 1. 21. 1 John 2. 27. Eze. 16. 9. Isaiah 20. 27. This Text then being not meant of kings which are actually, but of Christians only spiritually anointed, in regard of which anointing (as I have elsewhere largely manifested) they are in Scripture, not only styled Christians (which in plain English is annointed) Acts 11. 26. c. 26. 26. 1 Pet. 4. 16. but Christ (in the abstract) 1 Cor. 12. 12. Ephes. 4. 12, 13. the Members, Body, Flesh and Bones of Christ. 1 Cor. 12. 12, 7. Ephes. 1. 22. 23. c. 5. 29, 30, 31. Col. 1. 24. Yea, Kings and Priests unto God the Father: Exod. 19. 6. 1 Pet. 2. 5. Revel. 1. 6. c. 5. 10. c. 20. 6. for whom God hath prepared a heavenly Kingdom, (wherein they shall reign with Christ forever) with an everlasting Crown of glory too, Matth. 5. 3. c. 25. 34. Luke 6. 20. c. 12. 32. c. 22. 29. 30. Col. 1. 13. 2 Thess. 2. 12. 1 Corinth. 9. 25. 2 Tim. 2. 12. c. 4. 8. Heb. 12. 28. 2 Pet. 5. 4. 2 Pet. 1. 11. I am. 2. 5. Revel. 22. 5. The proper argument then that can be thence deduced by our Opposites, is but this Nonsequitur.

Kings themselves must not touch God's spiritually anointed Saints and servants to do them harm; Ergo, if Kings do violently and unjustly make war upon them, not only to harm, but plunder, murder, destroy them utterly, extirpate that Religion they profess and are bound to maintain, they are obliged in point of conscience, under pain of damnation, not to resist; Whereas the conclusion should be directly contrary. Therefore they may lawfully with good conscience resist them to the uttermost, in such cases: For since God hath thus directly enjoined Kings, Not to touch, or do them harm; if Kings will willfully violate this injunction, they may with safe conscience, by forc • of Arms withstand, repulse, their unjust violence, and hinder Kings or their instruments from doing them that injury which God himself prohibits; else they should be accessories to their kings injustice, and authors of their own wrongs, according to these received Maxims; Quinon pohibet malum quod potest, jubet; Qui potest obviare & perturbare perversos & non facit, nihilest aliud quam favere eorum impietati: Nec caret scrupulo societatis occultae, qui manifesto facinori desinit obviare. Qui definite obviare cum potest, consentit: used by Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Isiodor, Anastatius, and Gratian, who recites, applies them to defensive wars. And if our Opposites (who pervert this Text by translating it from Subjects and Saints, to Kings ) may in their erroneous sense safely argue thence, That if subjects take up Arms against their Princes, contrary to this Text, their Princes may by virtue of this precept, justly resist them with force, and repulse their injuries; then by the true genuine sense thereof (being meant of Subjects, Saints, not Kings) if Kings will violently assault and make war upon Saints, their Subjects, to harm them, they may with as good reason and conscience defend themselves against their Kings and ill Instruments, as their Kings protect themselves in this sort against them, and that by authority of this Text, by our Opposites own argumentation.

Thirdly, admit this Scripture meant of Kings, yet what str • ngth is there in it to privilege them from just necessary resistance? If any, it must rest in the word anointed; but this will afford kings no such corporal privileges as many fancy, neither from lawful resistance, nor deposition, nor sentence of death itself, which I shall undeniably evidence to refute a commonly received error: For, first, it is apparent, that the anointed here meant, are such only who are spiritually anointed, either with the external profession and ceremonies of God's true religion, or with the internal graces of the Spirit; for neither Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, nor their families (nor any kings or Priests in their days) for ought we find, were corporally anointed. Besides, the annointing here intended, is that which is common to Priests and Prophets (as Touch not mine anointed, and do my Prophets no harm, infallibly proves) rather then that which is peculiar to kings. Whence I thus argue, That annoin • ing which is common to subjects as well as kings, and cannot secure any subjects, who in the genuinesence of the Text, are God's anointed, from just resistance, corporal violence, legal censures, or death, cannot in or of itself alone secure kings from any of these, no further then it secures subjects: for the annoiting being the same in both, must have the self-same operation and immunities in both. But this anointing in subjects can neither exempt their persons from necessary just resistance, if they unlawfully assault or war upon their Superiors, equals, inferiors; nor free them from arrests, imprisonments, arraignments, deprivations, or capital censures, if they offend and demerit them, as we all know by Scripture and experience: Therefore it can transfer no such corporal immunities or exemptions from all or any of these, to kings; but only, exempt them from unlawful violence and injuries, in point of right, so far forth, as it doth other Subjects. In a word, this annointing being common to all Christians, can give no special Prerogative to Kings, but only such as are common to all Subjects, as they are Christians. Secondly, admit it be mean of an actual external anointing, yet that of itself affords Kings no greater privilege then the inward unction, of which it is a type, neither can it privilege them from just resistance, or just corporal censures of all sorts. First, it cannot privilege them from the just assaults, invasions, resistance, corporal punishments of other foreign kings, Princes, States, Subjects not subordinate to them, who upon any just cause or quarrel may lawfully resist, assault, wound, apprehend, imprison, slay, depose, judge, censure foreign kings, even to death; as is apparent by S • hon King of the Amorites, and Og the k • ng of Bashan, slain, the King of Ai hanged by Joshua, the five kings of Canaan that besieged Gibeon, on whose ne-ks Joshua made his men of war to put their feet, then smote, slew, and hanged them upon five trees. Who also assaulted, resisted, imprisoned, condemned, slew, executed divers other kings of Canaan, to the number of thirty one in all; by king Adonibezek, Eglon, Agag, with other Heathen Kings, imprisoned, stabbed, hewn in pieces by the I • raelites. If any object, These kings were not actually annointed, which they cannot prove, since Cyrus an Heathen King, is styled God's annointed; no doubt Saul was an annointed King, if not the first in the world, 1 Sam. 10. 1. yet he was justly resisted, wounded, pursued by the Philistines, 1 Sam. 31. 3. Josiah an annointed good King, was slain by Pharaoh Necho King of Egypt, whom he rashly encountered; King Ahab was slain by an Archer of the King of Assyria, King Joram and Ahaziah were both slain by Jehu, by God's command; Iehoaaz was deposed by the King of Egypt, Jehoiakim and Iehoiakin both deposed, fettered and kept prisoners by the King of Babylon; who also apprehended, deposed, judicially condemned King Zedekiah, put out his eyes, and sent him prisoner to Babylon bound with fetters of brass. So Manasseh was deposed, bound with fetters of brass, and carried captive by the Captains of the King of Assyria. Amaziah King of Judah was taken prisoner by Jehoash King of Israel. Infinite are the presidents in stories, where kings of one Nation in just wars, have been assaulted, invaded, imprisoned, deposed, slain, by Princes and Subjects of another Nation; and that justly, as all grant without exception; neither their annointing, nor Kingship being any exemption or privilege to them at all in respect of foreigners, in cases of hostility, to whom they are no Sovereigns, no more then to any of their Subjects. Whereas if this royal annointing did make their persons absolutely sacred and inviolable, no foreign Princes or Subjects could justly apprehend, imprison, smite, wound, slay, depose, or execute them. Secondly, Kings who are suborordinate Homagers and Subjects to other Kings or Emperors, though anointed, may for Treasons and Rebellions against them, be lawfully resisted, assaulted, imprisoned, deposed, judged to death and executed, because as to them they are but Subjects, notwithstanding their annointing, as appears by sundry presidents in our own and foreign Histories; and is generally confessed by the learned. Thirdly, the Roman, Greek and German Emperors, though anointed, the ancient Kings of France, Spain, Aragon, Britain, Hungary, Poland, Denmark, Bohemia, India, Sparta, and other places (who were not absolute Monarchs) have in former ages been lawfully resisted imprisoned, deposed, and some of them judicially adjudged to death and executed by their own Senates, Parliaments, Di • ts, States, for their oppression, mal-administration, tyranny, and that justly, as Bodin, Grotius, with others affirm, notwithstanding any pretence that they were anointed Sovereigns. Fourthly, Popes, Bishops and Priests anciently were, and at this present in the Romish Churches are actually anointed as well as Kings; and we know the Popish Clergy and Canonists have frequently alleged this Text, Touch not mine anointed and do my Prophets no harm, in Councils, Decretals and solemn debates in Parliament, to prove their exemption from the arrests, judgments, capital censures and proceedings of Kings and secular Judges for any crimes whatsoever, because (forsooth) they were God's anointed, intended in this Text, not Kings; therefore Kings and Seculars must not touch, nor offer any the least violence to their persons, no not in a way of justice. By color of this Text they exceedingly deluded the world in this particular for hundreds of years. But in the seventh year of Hen. the 8. in Dr. Standish his case debated before a Committee of both Houses of Parliament, and all the Judges of England, this Text being chiefly insisted on to prove the Clergies exemption, Jure Divino, was wholly exploded in England, and since that in Germany, France, other Realms; and notwithstanding its protection, many Popes, Bishops, and Clergy-men in all Kingdoms, ages, for all their annointing, have for their misdemeanors not only been resisted, apprehended, imprisoned, but deprived, degraded, hanged, quartered burned, as well as other men (Yea Abiathar the High Priest was deposed by Solomon for his Treason against him, notwithstanding his Annointing;) their annointing giving them not the smallest immunity to do ill, or not to suffer all kinds of corporal, capital punishments for their misdemeanors. If this actual annointing then, cannot lawfully exempt or secure Priests and Prelates persons, nor the Pope himself from the premises, how then can it justly privilege the persons of Kings? Fif • hly, among the Papists all infants, either in their baptism, or confirmation are actually anointed with their consecrated Chrism, and with extreme unction to boot at last cast, which they make a Sacrament, and so a thing of more divine sovereign Nature then the very annointing of Kings at their inauguration, which they repute no Sacrament, as being nowhere commanded by God: But neither of these actual unctions, exempt all or any of those anointed with it from resistance, or any corporal punishments, or just censures of any kind; therefore the very annointing of Kings cannot do it. Sixthly, the Ceremony of annointing kings, as Cassanaeus with others write, is peculiar only to the German Emperor, the King of Jerusalem, the King of France, the King of England, and the King of Sicily; but to no other kings else, who are neither anointed nor crowned, as he affirms; so that it cannot give any privilege at all to any but only to these 4. not other kings, who are not anointed Now seeing only these 4. kings are actually anointed, yea lawful Kings and their persons sacred, even before they are anointed or crowned, and other kings persons (as of Spain, Hungary, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, &c. ) who are not anointed, are as sacred, as exempt from danger, as those who are enoyled; And seeing the annointing of kings is at this day a mere arbitrary human Ceremony, not enjoined by divine authority, nor common to all Kings, who are Kings before their Coronations, it is most certain and infallible, that this enoyling in and of it self derives no personal Prerogatives or Immunities at all to kings, much less an absolute exemption from all actual resistance in cases of unjust invasions on their Subjects, or from the censures of their Parliaments for public distructive exorbitances, as most have hitherto blindly believed.

Neither will the frequent next objected speeches of David concerning Saul, impeach the premises, 1 Sam. 24. 6. 10. c. 26. 9. 11. 23. & 2 Sam. 1. 12. 16. The Lord forbid that I should do this thing unto my Master the Lord's Anointed, to stretch forth my hand against him, seeing he is the Lord's Anointed. I will not put forth my hand against my Lord, for he he is the Lord's anointed. And David said to Abishai, Destroy him not, for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord's Anointed, and be guiltless? The Lord forbid that I should stretch forth my hand against the Lord's Anointed. The Lord delivered thee into my hand today, but I would not stretch forth mine hand against the Lord's Anointed. How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thy hand against the Lord's Anointed? Thy blood shall be upon thy head, for thy mouth hath testified that thou hast slain the Lord's Anointed. Which several Texts seem at first sight to insinuate, that Saul's very external annointing was that which did secure his person from assauls and violence; and that it is unlawful even by way of defense, forcibly with A • mes to resist a persecuting unjustly invading king, because he is anointed.

But these Texts, if duly pondered, will warrant neither of these conclusions. First then, I answer, that Saul's bare annointing, considered as an external Ceremony to declare him a lawful King, did not, could not add any immunity to his person against David's, or any other Subjects justviolent resistance, as the premised reasons manifest; but it was only his royal Sovereign Office conferred on him by God and the people, to which his external annointing by Samuel was but a Preparation: That which made Saul, with other his successors, a king, was not his bare annointing. For Saul himself was anointed by Samuel, before he was made and chosen King, not when he was made King. So David, Hazael, Jehu, with others, were anointed before they were actual Kings, and many of their Successors by descent, were real kings before they were anointed; some of them being not anointed at all for ought we read: therefore their unction made them not kings, since neither simply necessary, nor essential to their being kings. Nor did Saul's annointing only, preceding his Regality, make his person sacred, or any other kings persons; for then it would follow, That if Saul had not been actually anointed, or had continued king for some years without this annointing, then David in such a case might lawfully have slain him, without check of conscience, and that the persons of kings not at all anointed; and of hereditary kings before their Coronations, till they are anointed, should not be sacred, nor exempt from violence; which is both false and perilous to affirm; but it was his Sovereign Royal Authority over David (then his Son-in-law, Servant, Subject ) which restrained him from offering violence to his person. Saul then being thus privileged, not because he was anointed, but because he was an anointed king, and that not quatenus Anointed, but quatenus King; the true sense and genuine interpretation of these Texts must be, That Saul's person was sacred, exempt from his Subjects violence, not because he was anointed, as if that only did privilege him; but because he was a lawful king appointed by the Lord himself, the Lord's anointed, being but a periphrasis, or form of speech, wherein the Ceremony of annointing, is used for the Regality, or kingly power it self, declared not conferred by annointing, and in plain words without any figure, it is put for, the Lord's King, that is, a King appointed by the Lord; in which sense God calls Christ my King; and David stiles himself (x) God's King. Saul's Royal Authority without his annointing, not his annointing, predestinating him to his Authority being the ground of this his immunity from David's violence. Secondly, Saul was anointed some space before he was made King, and David many year before he came to the Crown: I would then demand of any man; if Saul or David after their unction, and before their election and inauguration to the Crown had invaded or assaulted any of the people in an hostile manner, whether they might not have justly resisted, repulsed, yea slain them • o in their own necessary defense? If no • , then one Subject may not repulse the unjust violence of another in an elective kingdom, if by possibility he may afterwards be chosen king, though for the present he be neither actually king nor Magistrate, but a Shepherd, as David was, Psal. 78. 70, 71▪ which I presume none will affirm, I am certain none can prove: If so then it was not Saul's annointing but only his Royal Authority, which made David thus to spare his life, his person. So that our Opposites pressing this Argument only from his Annointing, is both false and idle, as all the premises demonstrate.

But to set the Argument right; I answer thirdly, That all which these Texts and David's example prove, is but this. That Subjects ought not willfully or purposely to murder or offer violence to the persons of their kings; especially in cold blood when they do not actually assault them. Ergo they may not resist, repulse their personal actual assaults, nor oppose their cut-throat Cavaliers when they make an unjust war against them. Which Argument is a mere Non sequitur.

For 1. David's example extends only to Saul's own person, not to his Soldiers, who were neither kings, nor God's Anointed; and whom David no doubt would have resisted and slain too had they assaulted him, though he spared Saul: as Dr. Fern himself insinuates in these words; David's Guard that he had about him, was only to secure his person against the cut-throats of Saul, if sent to take away his life, &c. He was annointed and designed by the Lord to succeed Saul, and therefore he might use an extraordinary way of safe-guarding his person: Therefore he and his Guard would and might doubtless have with a safe conscience resisted, repulsed Saul's cut-throat Soldiers, had they assaulted David, to take away his life. And if so, then the Kings Cutthroat Cavalleers by his own confession, may lawfully be resisted, repulsed, slain in a defensive way, by the Parliaments forces now.

Secondly, the argument is absurd, because we may forcibly resist and repulse with safe conscience, those whom we may not willfully slay. If a man assaults me, to beat or wound me, I may resist, repulse him with violence, but I may not kill him in mine own defense, without murder or manslaughter, unless I could not otherwise preserve my own life by flight or resistance. Doctor Ferne grants, that a Subject may in his own private defense, lawfully ward off the Kings own blows, and hold his hands, in case of sudden and illegal assaults, much more then of malicious and premeditated: but yet denies, he may either wound or kill him, and that truly. To argue therefore from David's example and words, The King may not with safe conscience be wittingly slain by his subjects: Ergo, He and his Cavaliers may not be forcibly resisted, repulsed by them for their own defense and preservation, is a gross inconsequent by the Doctors own confession.

Thirdly, there is nothing in all these speeches, or the practice, or in David, pertinent to the case in dispute; for when David's men moved him to kill Saul, and would have risen up against him, to slay him, & David refused to act, or suffer his men to do it; neither Saul nor any of his men did actually assault David or his followers, nor so much as once discover them; but Saul went casually to cover his feet into the Cave, where they lay hid; which done, he rose up and went on his way, not once espying David (though h • cut off the skirt of his Robe privily ) nor any of his men with him. To argue therefore, That David and his men might not with a safe conscience stretch forth their hands and rise up against their Soveraingne king Saul, to kill him thus in cold blood, when he assaulted them not, nor so much as thought of their being in the Cave, and went out of it quietly, not discovering them; Ergo, they might not, they would not in conscience have resisted, repulsed him, or his Forces, had they assaulted, or given them battle in the Cave, is a Non-sense Conclusion; just in effect the same with this. I may not resist or repulse one who assaults me not, Ergo, I may not resist one that actually assaults me to take away my life, or to beat, rob, wound me: What Logic, Reason, Law or Divinity is there in such an argument? So after this when Abishai said to David, God hath delivered Saul thine enemy into thy hand this day, now therefore let me smite him, I pray thee, with the spear, even to the earth at once, I will not smite him the second time: And David said to Abishai, Destroy him not, for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord's Anoynted (to wit, to slay him purposely, as Abishai intended) and be guiltless? The Text is express, That Saul and his men were then in their own Trenches, fast a sleep, because a deep sleep from the Lord was fallen upon them; David and Abishai were here the only assailants, they came into Saul's Trenches, he and his whole army were in so sound a sleep, that they came to Saul's own person, took away with them his Spear, and the Cruse of water from his Bolster, and departed, not being once discerned; No man resists, assaults, discovers them. To slay Saul thus in cold blood, without any assault or present provocation, and especially upon a private quarrel, had been Treachery and impiety in a Son-in-Law, a Servant, a Subject, a Successor; and to do it with the hazard of their own lives, had any of Saul's Army been awakened at the stroke Abishai would have given him. (as probably they might have been) they being but two, and within their enemies Trenches, in the midst of the Army, who might have easily and speedily slain them, had been rashness, indiscretion; their departure with the Spear and Cruse was more Heroicall, Loyall, prudential. To conclude therefore, as our Opposites do from this speech and example, That David thought it unlawful in point of Conscience for him or Abishai to murder his Sovereign Lord King Saul, when he and his men were thus fast asleep in the midst of their Trenches, offering them no wrong, making no actual assaults upon them; Ergo, they could not, would not justly with safe consciences have forcibly defended themselves against Saul and his Army, had they been assaulted by them in their own Trenches; is a trascendent absurdity, refuted by the very next words of David to Abishai at that instant, 1 Sam. 26. 10. And David said furthermore, As the Lord liveth, the Lord shall smite him, or his day shall come to die; or he shall DESCEND INTO BATTELL AND PERISH; which intimates, that if Saul would force him to a battle, then he might lawfully defend himself against his violence, though he might not murder him now in his sleep, when he did him no harm; and if he casually perished in the battle, it was Saul's own willful default, not his, who could not dissuade him by all this his fair carriage and sparing of his life, (when he had those two advantages to slay him) from his violent prosecution, nor yet succeed him in the Crown (as God had appointed and foretold) should he suffer him to murder him and his men in battle without resistance. Yea, David's earnestness to go with Achish and the Philistines to the battle against Saul, wherein he perished, 1 Sam. 29. (unless we will tax David for a notable Hypocrite and dissembler) unanswerably evidenceth, that he deemed it lawful to resist, to encounter Saul and his Forces in battle, not withstanding his person might chance to perish in the fight, though not to slay him treacherously, and basely upon the precedent advantages: And his slaying of that lying Amalekite who brought him tidings of Saul's death, reporting that himself had slain him, to gain a reward from David, he being then one of Saul's soldiers▪ (as it seems) concludes only, that it was not lawful for any of Saul's own men to s • y him, by his own command: Not that resistance of him in the open battle was unlawful in point of conscience. Other answers might be given to this Objection concerning David and Saul. As 1. that this difference was but private and personal between Saul and David, David being then Saul's private subject, Servant, Son in Law, not public between Saul his whole Parliament or Kingdom; now many things are unlawful to be done in private quarrels, which are just and honorable in public differences.

Secondly, that David himself, though he thus forbore to murder Saul, yet he tells him, 1 Sam. 24. 10, 11, 12. This day thine eyes have seen how that the Lord had delivered thee today into mine hand in the Cave, and some bad me kill thee, but mine eye SPARED THEE; and I said, I will not put forth my hand against my Lord, for he is the Lord's anointed. Moreover, my father, see, yea▪ see the skirt of thy Robe in my hand, for in that I cut off the skirt of thy Robe and KILLED THEE NOT, know thou and see, that there is neither evil nor transgression in mine hand, and I have not sinned against thee, yet thou huntest my soul to take it. The Lord judge between me & thee, and the Lord avenge me of thee, but mine hand shall not be upon thee and plead my cause and deliver me out of thine hand. And after this upon the second advantage, he useth like words. The Lord render to every man according to his righteousness & faithfulness, for the Lord delivered thee into my hand today, but I would not stretch forth my hand against the Lord's anointed. And behold, as THY LIFE WAS MVCH SET BY THIS DAY IN MY EYES, so let my life be much set by in the eyes of the Lord, and let him deliver me out of all tribulation: Wherein David declared, that God had given up Saul's life into his power, that it was his own mere goodness that moved him to spare Saul contrary to his Soldiers, and Abishaies minds, who would have slain him, without any scruple of conscience; that the reasons he spared him were: First, because he was God's Anointed, that is, specially designed and made King of Israel by God's own election, which no kings at this day are, & so this reason extends not so fully to them, as to Saul. Secondly, Because he was his Father and Lord too, and so it would have been deemed somewhat an unnatural act in him. Thirdly, because it had • avoured only of private self-revenge and ambitious aspiring to the Crown before due time, which became not David, the quarrel, being then not public, but particular betwixt him and David only, who was next to succeed him after his death. Fourthly, because by this his lenity he would convince & reclaim Saul frō his bloody pursuit, and clear his innocence to the world. Fifthly, to evidence his dependence upon God and his special promise; that he should enjoy the Crown after Saul by divine appointment; and therefore he would not seem to usurp it by taking Saul's life violently away. Most of which considerations fail in cases of public defense, and the present controversy. Thirdly, that Saul himself, as well as David's Soldiers, conceived, that David might with safe conscience have slain as well as spared him; witness his words, 1 Sam. 24. 17, 18, 19 Thou art more righteous then I, for thou hast rewarded me good, whereas I have rewarded thee evil: And thou hast shown me this day how thou hast dealt well with me; for as much as when the Lord had delivered me into thine hand THOU KILLEDST ME NOT. For if a man find his enemy WIL HE LET HIM GO WEL AWAY? Wherefore the Lord reward thee good for that thou hast done unto me this day, &c. And in 1. Sam. 26. 21. Then said Saul, I have sinned; return my son David, for I will no more do thee harm, because my sovle was precious in thine eyes this day; behold I have played the fool exceedingly, &c. But the former answers are so satisfactory, that I shall not pray in aid from these, much less from that evasion of Dr. Fern, who makes this, and all other David's demeanors in standing out against Saul EXTRAORDINARY; for he was anointed and designed by the Lord to succeed Saul; and therefore he might also use all extraordinary ways of safeguarding his person; which like wise insinua • es, that this his scruple of conscience in sparing Saul's life was but extraordinary, (the rather, because all his Soldiers and Abishai would have slain Saul without any such scruple, and Saul himself conceived, that any man else but David would have done it: ) and so by consequence affirms, that this his sparing of Saul is no ways obl • gatory to other subjects, but that they may lawfully in David's case kill their Sovereigns▪ But David's resistance of Saul by a guard of men, being only that ordinary way which all subjects in all ages have used in such cases, and that which nature teacheth not only men, but all living creatures generally to use for their own defense, and this evasion derogating exceedingly from the personal safety of Princes, yea, and exposing them to such perils as they have cause to con the Dr. small thanks for such a bad invention, I shall reject it as the extraordinary fancy of the Dr. & other loyalists, void both of truth and loyalty.

The 7. Objection out of the Old Testament is this, 1 Sam. 8. 11. Samuel tells the people, how they should be oppressed under kings; yet all that violence and injustice that should be done unto them, is no just cause of resistance: for they have NO REMEDY LEFT THEM BVT CRYING TO THE LORD, v. 18. And ye shall cry out in that day because of the King which ye shall have chosen you, and the Lord will not hear you in that day.

To this I answer 1. that by the Doctors own confession, this text of Samuel, much urged by some of his fellows, to prove an absolute divine Prerogative in Kings, is quite contrary to their suggestion; and meant only of the oppression, violence, and in • u • (not lawful power) of Kings, which should cause them thus to cry out to God This truth we have clearly gained by this objection, for which some Royalists will renounce their champion. 2. It is but a mere fallacy and absurdity not warranted by the Text; which saith not, that they shall only cry out; or that they shall use no remedy or resistance, but crying out; which had been material, but barely, ye shall cry out in that day, &c. Ergo, they must and should only cry out, and not resist at all▪ is a gross Non-sequitur: which Argument because much cried up, I shall demonstrate the palpable absurdity of it by many parallel instances. First, Every Christian is bound to pray for Kings and Magistrates, 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2. Ergo, they must only pray and not fight for them, nor yield tribute or obedience to them: Kings and their Subjects too are bound to cry out, and pray to God against foreign enemies that come to war against them, as Moses did against Pharaoh and his Host, David against his enemies, Hezekiah against Sennacherib and his Hoste, Asa against his enemies, Abijah and the men of Judah against Jeroboam and the Israelites their enemies; and as all Christians usually do against their enemies. (Yea, I make no doubt but the Doctor, and other Court-Chaplains, inform his Majesty and the Cavalleers, that they must cry to God against the Parliamenteers and Roundheads now in Arms to resist them;) Ergo, they must only pray, but in no wise resist or fight against them; All men must pray to God for their daily bread: Ergo, they must only pray and not labor for it; Sick persons must pray to God to restore their health: Ergo, they must take no Physic, but only pray; All men are expressly commanded to cry and call upon God in the day of trouble, Ergo, they must use no means but prayer to free themselves from trouble; pretty Logic, Reason, Divinity, fitter for deri • ion then any serious Answer. This is all this Text concludes, and that grossly mistaken Speech of Saint Ambrose, Christians weapons are Prayers, and Tears; of which anon in its due place. In one word, prayer no more excludes resistance, then resistance, prayer, both of them may, and sometimes (when defense is necessary, as now) ought to concur; so that our Court Doctors may as well argue, (as some Prelates not long since did in word and deed) Ministers ought to pray, and God's House is an Oratory for prayer: Ergo, they must not Preach (atleast, very seldom) nor make his House an Auditory for Preaching: Or as rationally reason from this Text, That Subjects must cry out to God against their kings oppressions, Ergo, they must not petition their Kings, much less complain to their Parliament for relief; as conclude from thence; Ergo, they may in no case resist the king, or his invading Forces, though they endeavor to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, as the Doctor himself states the controversy: whose arguments will hardly satisfy conscience, being so void of reason, • ence, yea science.

The eighth is this, None of the Prophets in the Old Testament, reprehending the Kings of Israel and Judah for their gross Idolatry, cruelty, oppression, did call upon the Elders of the people for the duty of resistance; neither do we find the people resisting, or taking up Arms against any of their kings, no not against Ahab or Manasseh, upon any of these grounds: Ergo, resistance is unlawful.

To which I must reply, first, That none of the Prophets did ever forbid resistance in such cases, under pain of Damnation, as our new Doctors do now; Ergo, it was lawful, because not prohibited. Secondly, that as none of the people werethen inhibited to resist, so not dehorted from it: therefore they might freely have done it, had they had hearts and zeal to do it. Thirdly, Josephus resolves expressly, That by the very Law of God, Deuter. 17. If the King did contrary to that Law, multiply silver, gold, and horses to himself, more then was fitting, the Israelites might lawfully resist him, and were bound to do it, to preserve themselves from Tyrannie; Therefore no doubt they might have lawfully resisted their Kings Idolatry, cruelty oppressions. Fourthly, Hulderichus Zwingli, a famous Protestant Divine, with others, positively affirms, That the Israelites might not only lawfully resist, but likewise depose their Kings for their wickednesses and Idolatries; yea, That all the people were justly punished by God, because they removed not their flagitious, idolatrous Kings and Princes out of their places, which he proves by Ie • em 15. where after the four Plagues there recited, the Prophet subjoins the cause of them, saying, Verse 4. I will give them in fury to all the Kingdoms of the Earth, ( that is, I will stir up in fury all the kings of the earth against them ) because of Manasseh the son of Hezekiah king of Judah, for that which he did in Jerusalem. This Manasseh had committed many wickednesses by Idolatry and the shedding of innocent blood, as we may see in the one and twentieth Chapter of the second of the Kings; for which evils the Lord grievously punished the people of Israel: Manasseh shed over much innocent blood, until he had filled Jerusalem even to the mouth, with his sins wherewith he made Judah to sin, that it might do evil before the Lord: Therefore because Manasseh King of Judah did these most vile abominations, above all that the Amorites had done before him, and made the Land of Judah to sin in his uncleanness, therefore thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Behold, I will bring evil upon Jerusalem and Judah, that whosever shall hear, both his ears shall tingle &c. In sum, if the Jews had not thus permitted their King to be wicked WITHOUT PVNISMENT; they had not been so grievously punished by God. We ought to pull and cast away even our eye that offends, so a hand and foot, &c. If the Israelites had thus DEPOSED Manasseh by consent and suffrages of all, or the greatest part of the multitude, they had not been so grievously punished of God. So Zwingli, with whom even B. Bilson himself in some sort accords, who in descending & interpreting his opinion, confesseth, That it is a question among the Learned, What Soveraigney the whole people of Israel had over their Kings; confessing, that the people's rescuing Jonathan that he •• ed not, when Saul would have put him to death, David's speech to the people when he purposed to reduce the Ark, all the Congregations speech and carriage toward Rehoboam when they came to make him King, with the people's speech to Jeremiah, Thou shalt die the death; have persuaded some, and might lead Zwingli to think, that the people of Israel, notwithstanding they called for a King, yet RESERVED TO THEMSELVES SVFFICIENT AVTHORITY TO OVERRVLE THEIR KING, IN THOSE THINGS WHICH SEEMED EXPEDIENT AND NEEDFVLL FOR THE PVBLIKE WELFARE▪ else God would not punish the people for the kings iniquity, which they must suffer, and not redress. Which opinion, if as Orthodox, as these learned Divines and Josephus aver it, not only quite ruins our Opposites Argument, but their whole Treatises and cause at once. But fifthly, I answer, that subjects not only by command of God's Prophets, but of God himself, and by his special approbation have taken up Arms against their Idolatrous Princes, to ruin them and their Posterities: A truth so apparent in Scripture, that I wonder our purblind Doctors discern it not: For did not God himself, notwithstanding his frequent (conditional) promises to establish the Kingdom of Israel on David, Solomon and their Posterity; for Solomon's gross Idolatry ( occasioned by his Wives ) tell Solomon in express terms? Wherefore for as much as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my Covenant and my Statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely REND THE KINGDOM FROM THEE, and will give it to thy servant. Notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it, for David thy fathers sake; but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son. Did not the Prophet. Abijah in pursuance hereof, rending Jereboam's garment into twelve pieces, tell him? Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, behold, I will rend the Kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee; And I will take the Kingdom out of his sons hand, and will give it unto thee, even ten Tribes; and I will take thee, and thou shalt reign according to all that thy soul desireth, and shalt be King over Israel; and I will for this afflict the Seed of David. Yea, did not ALL ISRAEL upon Solomon's death, when Rehoboam his son refused to grant their just requests at their coming to Shechem to make him king, use this speech to the king, What Portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse, to your Tents ô Israel: now see to thine own house David. Whereupon they departed and fell away from the house of David everafter, and made Iereboam King over all Israel. And doth not the Text directly affirm? Wherefore Rehoboam hearkened not unto the people, for the cause was from the Lord, that he might perform the saying which the Lord spake to Abijah unto Jeroboam, the son of Nebat. After which when Rehoboam raised a mighty Army to reduce the ten Tribes to obedience, the Word of the Lord came to Shemaiah the man of God, saying, Speak unto Rehoboam and all the house of Judah and Benjamin, Thus SAITH THE LORD, Ye shall not go up to fight against your brethren the children of Israel, return every man to his house; FOR THIS THING IS FROM ME; They hearkened therefore to the word of the Lord and returned to depart, according to the word of the Lord. Lo here a Kingdom quite rent away from the very house of David; yea, a new King and kingdom erected by the People, by God's and his Prophets special direction, and approbation, for King Solomon's Idolatry. Who is such a stranger to the sacred Story, but hath ofttimes read, how God anointed Jehu King, of purpose to extirpate and cut off the whole house of K. Ahab his Lard for his and Jezebels Idolatry and blood-shed, in slaying the Prophets, and unjustly executing Naboth for his Vineyard? in performance whereof he s • ew his Sovereign King Joram, Ahaziah King of Judah, Queen Jezebel, all Ahab's posterity, his great men, his Nobles, and all the Priests and Worshippers of Baal, till he left none remaining, according to the word of the Lord which he spake by his servant Elijah, a Kings c. 9. & 10. For which good service the Lord said unto Jehu, Because THOU HAST DONE WELL in executing that which is right in mine eyes, and hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was IN MINE HEART, thy children of the • . generation, shall sit on the Throne of Israel. This fact therefore of his thus specially commanded, approved, rewarded by God himself, must needs be just and lawful, not Treason, not Rebellion in Jehu, unless the Opposites will charge God to be the author, approver, and rewarder o • fin, of Treason.

Neither will it serve their turns to Reply, that this was an extraordinary example, not to be imitated without such a special commission from heaven, as Jehu had, and no man can now a days expect; For since God hath frequently enjoined all gross incorrigible Idolaters (especially those who are nearest and dearest to, and most potent to seduce us) to be put to death, without any pity, or exception of Kings, whose examples are most pernicious, and apt to corrupt the whole Nation, as the presidents of the Idolat • ous kings of Israel and Judah abundantly evidence) if Kings become open professed Idolaters, though private persons may not murder them, and their families, as Jehu; yet the representative body, or greater part of their Kingdoms, (as many Pious Divines affirm) may lawfully convent, depose, if not judge them capitally for it: and God's putting zeal and courage into their hearts, or exciting them by his faithful Ministers, to such a proceeding, is a sufficient Divine Commission to satisfy Conscience, if no sinister private ends, but mere zeal of God's glory, and detestation of Idolatry be the only Motives to such their proceedings. Thus we read, God stirred up Baach • , exalted out of the dust, and made him a Prince over the house of Israel, who slew king Nadab, and smote all the house of Jeroboam, till he left him not any that breathed, because of the sins of Jeroboam which he sinned, and which he made Israel sin, by his provocation where with he provoked the Lord God of Israel to anger; who going on after in Jereboam's sins, God threatens to • ut off all his house, and make it like the house of Jeroboam; which was actually executed by Zimri, who slew his Sovereign King Elah, son to Baacha, With all the house of Baacha, and left not one that pissed against the wall, neither of his kinsfolks▪ nor of his friends, according to the word of the Lord which he spake against Baacha by Jehu the Prophet. Which act of Zimri, though a just judgment in regard of God, on the family of Baacha for their Idolatry, was notwithstanding reputed Treason in Zimri, because he did it not out of Conscience or zeal against Idolatry, being, and continuing an Idolater himself; but only out of ambition to usurp the Crown, without the peeples consent; whereupon all the people made Omri King and then going all to the Royal Palace, set it on fire, and burnt Omri in it, both for his sins, Idolatries, and Treason which he wrought. We read expressly, that after the time that Amaziah did turn away from following the Lord, they (for this) conspired a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem, and he fled to Lachish, but they sent to Lachish after him, and slew him there; and they brought him upon horses, and buried him with his fathers in the City of Judah. Then all the people of Judah took Uzziah, who was 16 years old, and MADE HIM KING in the room of his father Amaziah, and he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord. So Zachariah, Shallum, Pekahiah, Pekah, four evil Kings of Judah, successivly acquiring the Crown by murder, and reigning evilly in God's sight, were all slain by God's just judgment on them, of one another, and Hoshea. In few words, God himself ever annexed this condition to the Kings of Israel and Judah, that they should serve and fear him, obey his Laws, keep his Covenant, otherwise if they did wickedly forsake him, or commit idolatry, he would destroy, forsake, and cast them and their seed off from being Kings. When therefore they apparently violated the condition, the whole State and people, as God's Instruments, lawfully might, and sometimes did by God's special direction, remov depose, and sometimes put them even to death for their gross iniquities, and idolatries; and when they did it not, it was not (as many think) for want of lawful Sovereign Authority remaining in the whole State and people, (as I shall fully manifest in the Appendix ) but out of a defect of zeal, out of a general complying with their Kings in their abominable idolatries and sins, which brought War, Captivity, ruin, both on their Kings, their Posterity, the whole Nation and Kingdoms of Judah, and Israel, as the Sacred Story plentifully relates. All which considered, this objection proves not only false, but fatal to the Obiectors cause, who might with more discretion have forborne, then forced such an answer to it, which I hope and desire no private persons will abuse to justify any disloyalty, sedition, Treason, Rebellion, or taking up of Arms against their lawful Princes, though never so evil, without the public consent and authority of the representative bodies or major part of their several Realms, biased with no sinister nor private respects, but aiming only at God's glory, and the public weal, security, peace of Church and State. Thus much in answer to the principal Objections out of the Old Testament.

The ninth and most material Objection, on which our Opposites principally rely, is that noted Text in the New Testament, Rom. 13. 1, 2. Let every soul be subject unto the higher Powers, for there is no Power but of God; the Powers that be, are Ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God, and they that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation. From whence Dr. Fern concludes, 1. That the King is the Supreme or Highest Power here intended. 2. That all persons under the Highest Power are expressly forbidden to resist. 3. That in those days there was a standing and continual great Senate, which not long before had the Supreme Power in the Roman State, and might challenge more by the fundamentals of that State, then our Great Council will or can. But now the Emperor being supreme, as S. Peter calls him, or the Higher Power, as S. Paul here, there is no power of resistance left to any that are under him, by the Apostle. 4 Was there ever more cause of resistance then in those days? Were not the Kings then not only conceived to be inclined so, and so, but even actually to be enemies of Religion, had overthrown Laws and Liberties? And therefore if any should from the Apostles reasons that he gives against resistance in the 3, 4, 5, Verses, ( for Rulers are not a • error to good works, but evil, and he is the Minster of God to thee for good ) reply, That Rulers so long as they are not a terror to the good, but ministers for our good, are not to be resisted; the consideration of those times leaves no place for such exception, because the Powers then (which the Apostle forbids to resist) were nothing so, but subverters of that which was good and just. The Emperors did then indeed rule absolutely and arbitrarily, which should have according to the Principles of those days been a stronger motive to resist. But how did they make themselves of Subjects such absolute Monarchs? was it not by force and change of the Government? and was not the right of the People and Senate (according to the Principles of these days) good against them, with as much or more reason, then the right of the people of this Land is against the Succession of this Crown, descending by three Conquests? 5. The prohibition doth not only concern Christians, but all the people under those Emperors, and not only Religion was persecuted, but Liberties also lost, the people and Senate were then enslaved by Edicts and Laws then enforced on them, by Nero and other Roman Emperors, yet notwithstanding the Apostle prohibits them to resist. By all which consc • ence will clearly see, it can have no warrant in Scripture for resistance, to wit, of the King, or his invading Forces, by way of necessary defense. So the Doctors and other Ob • ectors hence conclude

To give a satisfactory Answer to this grand Objection, I shall in the first place inquire, Whether there be anything in this Text, prohibiting subjects to resist with Force the armed unjust violence of their Princes persons or instruments, especially when they are bent to overthrow Religion, Laws, Liberties, the Republic, and turn professed Tyrants? And under correction, I conceive there is not the least syllable or shadow in this Text for any such inhibition, as is pretended. Not to insist upon the words, higher Powers odained of God, &c. which extend not unto Tyrannie and illegal exorbitant oppressions, of which hereafter; I shall deduce my first Demonstrations to prove this negative Assertion, from the occasion inducing the Apostle to insert these objected Verses into this Epistle: Dr Willet recites 7. Reasons of it, all fortifying my assertion; I shall mention only the three most probable, most received of them, and apply them as I go.

First, the Roman Magistrates being then infidels, the new converted Christians among them, either did, or might take themselves to be wholly exempted from any subjection or obedience to them, reputing it a great incongruity, that Christians should owe any subjection to Pagans: To refute which error, the Apostle informs them, that though the Magistrates themselves were Ethnics, yet their Authority and Power was from God himself; therefore their profession of Christianity did rather oblige them to, then exempt them from subjection. Thus Haymo Soto, Calvin, Guather, Marlorat, Willet, Pareus, with others on this Text. Turn this Reason then into an Argument, and it will be but this Non sequitur: Christianity exempts not subjects from due obedience to just Pagan Magistrates, Ergo, Tyrants may not be resisted, neither ought the Parliament and their Forces to resist the Kings Cavalleers unjust assaults, as the case is formerly stated. Pretty Logic, and Divinity.

2. The Gaulonites, as Josephus records, with other Jews, being Abraham's seed, held it unlawful for them to yield any subjection or tribute to the Roman Emperors, or other Heathen Princes, reigning over them; whereupon they demanded this question of Christ himself, Is it lawful to pay tribute to Caesar? Matth. 12. which error perehance spread itself into the Christian Church, by reason of Evangelical Liberty, grounded on John. 8. If the Son shall make you free, then are ye free indeed; Mat. 17. The • are the Children free; and Ro. 6. We are not under the Law, but under Grace. To refell this mistake, the Apostle inserted these passages into this Epistle; Thus Soto, Calvin, Peter Martyr, Willet, and others. Whence nothing but this can be properly concluded, Neither the Prerogative of the Jews, nor Liberty of Christians exempts them from due subjection to lawful heathen Magistrates, because they are God's Ordinance, Ergo, No Subjects can with safe conscience defend themselves in any case against the unjust invasions of Tyrannicall Princes or their Armies. A palpable Inconsequent.

Thirdly, the Apostle having formerly taught, that Christians might not avenge themselves: lest some might have inferred thereupon (as many Anabaptists have done) that it was not lawful for Christians to use the Magistrates defense against wrongs, nor for the Magistrate himself to take vengeance of evil doers: To prevent this the Apostle argues, That the Magistrates are God's Ministers, appointed by him to punish Malefactors, and take vengeance on them. So Gualther, Willet, and others. To conclude from this ground: Oppressed Subjects may seek redress of their grievances from the Magistrates, who may lawfully punish Malefactors, Ergo, they may not resist with force, Tyrannicall bloody Magistrates, or their wicked Instruments, when they actually make war upon them, to ruin, spoil, enslave them, is but a ridiculous Non sequitur. There is nothing therefore in the occasions of the Apostles words which gives the least color, to disprove the lawfulness of such resistance, or of the Parliaments just defensive war.

Secondly, this is manifest by the whole Scope of this Text, which in sum is only this, That Christians ought in conscience to (l) be subject to all lawful higher Powers, so far forth as they are God's Ordinance, God's Ministers, for their good, to the praise of the good, and punishment of evil doers, and not to resist them in the execution of their just Authority: Or Christianity exempts not Christians from obedience unto faithful Civil Magistrates: to infer from thence. Ergo it is unlawful for Christians in point of conscience to resist their Magistrates when they war upon them to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, sl • y, plunder them, is but a mere non-sense deduction.

Thirdly, this appears most perspicuously from the motives to obedience, and reasons against resistance of Magistrates specified by the Apostle in the text it self.

First, the higher Powers must be submitted to, and not resisted, because they are ordained of God, and are God's Ordinance, verse. 1. 2. But they are ordained of God and his Ordinance, so far forth only as they govern according to his Word; and preserve, protect Religion, Laws, Liberties, the persons and estates of their people; They are not God's Ordinance, but the Devils, when they do quite contrary, walking about lik • roaring Lions, se • k • ng whom they may devour, as the Devil doth; According to that resolution of Bracton, and Fl • ta Exercere debet Rex potestatem Iuris sicut Dei Vicarius & Ministeri in terra, quia illa Potestas SOLIVS DEI EST potestas autem injuriae DIABOLI ET NON. DEI; Cujus horum operum fecerit Rex ejus minister crit. • gitur dum facit justitiam, vicarius est Regis aeterni: MINISTER AVTEM DIABOLI dum declinat ad injuriam. Therefore they are so far forth only to be obeyed and not resisted, as they are God's Ordinance, and lawful Magistrates, not a • they are tyrants and the Devils Agents: we might have obeyed the evil spirits themselves whiles they continued good Angels; Ergo we must not resist them now they are turned Devils, is 〈◊〉 Logic, course Divinity, contrary to the 1 Pet. 5. 8, 9. I am. 4. 7.

Secondly, because those who resist shall receive to themselves damnation, temporal or eternal, since they resist God's Ordinance, v. 2 But that subjects should be temporally and eternally damned, only for resisting tyrannical Magistrates or their Cavaliers, and that by authority from the Parliament, when they with armed violence most impiously s • t themselves o subvert Religion, Laws, Liberty, Property, and take away their liv • s, against all Laws of God and Man; for which they themselves incur both temporal and eternal damnation, • s •• ch a Paradox, as is no ways warranted by, but directly opposite to the Scripture. Therefore it must be intended only of resisting lawful Authority, and just commands.

3. They must be subjected to, not refisted, because Rulers are not aterror to good work, but to evil, v. 3. Now is this a reason why Subjects should not resist tyrannical oppressing Princes, Magistrates, or their Instruments, who are only a terror to good works, not to evil? who do evil and only evil continually, even with both hands? doubtless not. We must not resist Rulers who are a terror to good works but to evil; Ergo, we must not resist Rulers, who are a terror to good works, not to evil, as our Opposites conclude he • ce, is to argue poi •• blank against the Apostle; Ergo, we may and must resist them to our powers, lest we be partakers of their sins and punishments, and become authors of Religions and the Commonwealths subversion, is a more proper inference.

Fourthly, the Apostle subjoins this argument against resistance. Wilt thou not then be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same, Vers. 3. That power is not to be resisted, which we need not be afraid of, and of whom we shall have praise whiles we do that which is good: But this only can be intended of a lawful power justly executed; not of Tyrants, or their ill Ministers bent with force of arms to ruin Religion, Laws, Liberties,; who only terrify, disgrace, discountenance those that are good; applaud, advance none but those who are evil, and as Micah writes, Chap. 3. 2. 3. Love the evil and hate the good, and pluck off their skin from off them, and their flesh from off their bones, &c. Therefore this inhibition of resistance extends only to lawful Magistrates, not to ungodly oppressing Tyrants.

Fifthly, he is not to be resisted, but obeyed; because he is the Minister of God to thee for good, Vers. 4. But is this true of Tyrants? of ungodly Magistrates bent to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, and destroy their people? True of Caligula, of Nero, who wished all the Romans had but one neck, that he might cut them all off at one stroke; and purposely fired Rome to consume it, beholding the flames as a most delightful spectacle? Are such the Ministers of God for our good here intended? or not rather, the very Pests, Judgments, Scourges, Wolves, Cut-throats, destroyers of mankind, and direct Antinodes to all things that are good? If these be not within the Apostles definition, they are without his inhibition; which extends only to such, who are the Ministers of God to us for good: and implies a lawfulness of resisting those who are the Devils Ministers to us for evil, rather then God's for good.

Sixthly, He subjoins this further reason of obedience and not resistance, Vers. 5. But if thou dost that which is evil be afraid; for he beareth not the Sword in vain; for he is the Minister of God, a revenger, to execute wrath upon him that doth evil; which no ways suites with a Tyrant bent to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties: For he secures all evil men, especially those who are instrumental to advance his cruelty, and oppressions; gives liberty to all manner of wickednesses, Proclaimes impunity to his ill instruments, knowing that of the Poet to be true;

He beareth the sword not only in vain, in reference to any good end, for the promoting of God's glory and the public good; but likewise draweth it forth, and useth it directly against both; And is so far from being a Minister of God, or revenger to execute wrath upon them that do evil, that he is the very Minister of the Devil, a bloody implacable revenger to execute wrath upon those only that do good: Such was Nero, who then reigned, of whom Tertullian, Nihil nisi grande aliquid bonum a Nerone damnatum. This reason then extends only to righteous Governors, in their execution of justice upon wicked malefactors wherein they must not be resisted; Not to bloody, graceless, lawless Tyrants and their instruments, who by the rule of contraries may and ought to be resisted in their cruelties, oppressions, impieties.

Seventhly, the Apostle hereupon concludes, Vers. 5. Wherefore you must of necessity be subject not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. This conclusion as the word, Wherefore, demonstrates, being inferred from the premised reasons, extending only to just and upright Magistrates, not to Tyrants, as they are such; must relate wholly unto them; namely, that we must of necessity be subject unto just rules, and the higher powers, governing uprightly; Because they are God's Ordinance; because those who resist them shall receive damnation: Because they are not a Terror to good works, but to evil: because we shall have praise of them if we do good; because they are the Ministers of God to u • for good; and because they are God's Ministers and revengers, to execute wrath upon them only that do evil: Neither of which reasons extending to Tyrants, this conclusion can never reach to them; since no Law of God or man, necessitates any one to be subject, not only for wrath, but even for conscience sake, to the unjust commands and violence of Tyrants, but the quite contrary: Should Tyrants enjoin men, as some have done, to offer sacrifice to Idols, to renounce Christianity, abjure Jesus Christ, and yield up their chastity to their unruly lusts; God's Law and conscience in such cases enjoins them of necessity to disobey and resist those commands, even for conscience sake; as every man endued with conscience must acknowledge; Therefore this Text extends not to resistance of such exorbitant powers in such lawless cases.

Eighthly, the Apostle thus proceeds, Vers. 6. For this cause also pay you tribute, for they are God's Ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. What, do men pay any Tribute to Princes or Magistrates for this cause, that they may subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties? that they may plunder, murder, war upon, and expose them to the rapine of their ungodly Malignant Cavaliers? Or are Magistrates, God's Ministers, attending continually upon this very thing, to ruin Parliaments, Church, State, people? would any men, think you, give Tyrants wages for such a service, to cut their throats, to devour and undo them in soul, body, estate? Or do not they pay tribute to, and Magistrates attend continually upon quite contrary employments? If so, as none can contradict, then the resistance here is only intended of lawful Magistrates, who continually attend upon their charge, to protect the good, and punish Malefactors; not of Tyrants, who do quite contrary; and therefore are to be resisted.

Ninthly, he infers from the premises, Vers. 7. Render therefore to every man his due, tribute to whom tribute, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor: By what Law of God are obedience, fear and honor due to Tyrants in their ungodly, exorbitant, unjust commands, to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties? Certainly the Apostle hath nowhere in this Text, nor God himself in any other Scripture expressed such obedience, resistance, fear or honor to be due unto them: and Elisha his speech to King Jehoram, 2 King 3. 13. 14 compared with Ezek. 21. 25. Job 12. 19. 21. Ch. 34. 19. Nehem. 4. 7. to 20. Ch. 13. 17. Isa. 1. 23. Ch. 41. 25. Lam. 1. 6. Ch. 5. 2 proves directly, that they are not their due. Therefore this Text extends not to them, but only to lawful Magistrates.

Lastly, he concludes hence, Vers. 8. Owe no man anything, but to love one another: for be that loveth another hath fulfilled the Law. Now no such Love is owing to Tyrants who subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties; but we are to hate them with a perfect hatr • d, as enemies both to God and man, borne for the public prejudice, Psal. 139. 21. 22. Psal. 109. 1. to 21. 28, 29. but only just and upright Magistrates: Therefore this Text is intended only of them.

By all these premises it is undeniable, that the resistance here prohibited is only of lawful Magistrates in the due execution of their Offices, according to the Laws of God and the Realms they live in; not of tyrannical oppressing Princes, Rulers, or their instruments forcibly endeavoring to ruin Religion, Laws, Liberties, Parliaments, Kingdoms; which fully refutes the Doctors fourth Observation; of which more anon.

I now proceed to some farther disquisitions for the final clearing of this Text; and herein I shall examine,

First, what is meant by higher powers: whether Kings or the Roman Emperor only, as our objectors pretend, or all civil Magistrates whatsoever as well as Kings?

Secondly, whether the Roman Emperor in Paul's time were the highest Sovereign power in that State, or the Senate?

Thirdly, whether Tyrants and unjust oppressing Magistrates, as they are such, be within the intendment of this Text, and not to be resisted in any case.

Fourthly, whether Kings and kingdoms be God's Ordinance; or an institution jure divino; or a human ordinance jure humano; and how far divine or human?

Fifthly, what resistance of the higher powers is here prohibited?

For the first of these. By the higher Powers it is clear, that Kings and Emperors only are not meant, as our opposites dream; but all kind of civil Rulers and temporal Magistrates whatsoever, from the King himself to the Constable and Tithingman: As is apparent, first, by the word, higher Powers, used indefinitely in the plural number, without mentioning any special kind of power. Secondly, by those words; There is NO POWER but of God▪ the powers THAT ARE (that is, all lawful powers whatsoever now in being) are ordained of God: which universal Negative, and Affirmative, must necessarily include all lawful civil powers. Thirdly, by the following words: For Rulers, &c. that is, all Rulers in the plural number; a Title common to all inferior Officers: witness Exod. 18. 21. 22. 25, 26. (See 1 Chron. 12. 14.) And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them HEADS over the people: RVLERS of thousands, Rulers of hundreds, Rulers of fifties, and Rulers of ten's, (such as our Tithingmen are) and they judged the people at all seasons. So that the Tithingman is a Ruler, a higher power within this Text. Fourthly, the word Ministers, For they are God's Ministers, &c. in the plural too, extending generally to all officers. Fifthly, by v. 6, 7, 8. Render therefore to ALL their dues, (that is, to all Magistrates whatsoever; as these ensuing words evidence) tribute to whom tribu • e is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor: Owe nothing to ANY MAN, &c. that is, to ANY Magistrate, or Ruler of what kind soever. Sixthly, by parallel Texts, extending as well to inferior lawful Magistrates and Officers, as to Kings, as • Tim. 2. 1. I exhort therefore, that first of all supplications, prayers, &c. be made for all men; for Kings, and ALL THAT BE IN AVTHORITIE, &c. Titus 3. 1. Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey Magistrates (all in the plural:) 1 Pet. 2. 13. 14. Submit yourselves to EVERY ORDINANCE of man for the Lord's sake; whether it be to the King as supreme, or unto GOVERNORS, (in the plural) as unto those that are sent by him, for the punishment of evil doers, and the praise of them that do well; Compared with Josh. 1. 16. 17. 18. Ezra 7. 25, 26. Ephes. 6. 1. 5. Col. 3. 18. 20. 23. 1 Tim. 6. 1. Heb. 13. 17. Exod. 22. 28. Chap. 18. 21, 22. 25▪ 26. 2 Kings 11. 4. Seventhly, by all Expositors generally on this Text, ancient, moderne, Protestants, Papists, who grant, that this Text extends to all civil Magistrates, as well inferior and subordinate, as superior, (and many stick not to strain it even to Ecclesiastical ones ) So Origen, Ambrose, Jerome, Remigius, Theodulus, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Primasius, Haymo, Rabanus Maurus, Theophylact, O • cumenius, Haymo, Aquinas, Anselm, Iyra, Bruno, Gorran, Hugo de Sancto Victore, Tostatus, Luther, Calvin, Erasmus, Melanchthon, Gualther, Musculus, Bucer, Hemingius, Ferus, Fayus, Soto, Alexander Alesius, Peter Martyr, Pareus, Beza, Piscator, Zwingli, Tollet, Willet, Wilson, Nacclantus, Snecanus, Vignerius, Wenerichius, Winckelman, Estius, Faber, Cornelius a Lapide, Salmeron, Catharinus, Guilliandus, Adam Sasbout with sundry others. This then being irrefragable, hereby it is most apparent; First, that no resistance of the higher powers is here prohibited, but only in the due and legal execution of their offices: For if any inferior Officers illegally endeavor to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, and unrightly govern the people, they may lawfully be resisted by them: For example, if a Major, Justice of Peace, Constable or other officer; extravagating from the common course of Law and Justice; shall with force of arms in a riotous manner assault any private man, or the whole City or Village where he lives, to beat, wound, kill, plunder, dispossess the inhabitants of their houses, goods, franchises, or assult them on the highway side, to take away their purses; in these and such like cases, both in point of Law and conscience he may not only be forcibly resisted, but repulsed, apprehended, battered, if not lawfully slain by the people, and proceeded against as a delinquent: The reason is, because these illegal unjust actions, are not only besides, without their Commissions, but directly contrary to their offices, and the Laws, which never gave them authority to act such injustice: yet they are higher Powers ordained of God, within this Text, and no way to be resisted in the due execution of their Offices according to Law. If then these inferior Officers may be thus forcibly resisted, repulsed, notwithstanding this Text, in such cases as these; then by the self same reason Kings and Emperors may be thus resisted too; since the Text extends indifferently to them both. Let then the objectors take their choice; either affirm, that no inferior lawful Officers whatsoever, may be forcibly resisted, by the people, or repulsed, arraigned, censured for their misdemeanor, by virtue of this Text; which would bring an absolute Tyranny, Anarchy and confusion presently into the world, and make every Constable as great a Tyrant, Monarch as the grand Emperor of the Turks; or else confess, that this Text condemns not such resistance, even of Kings and Princes, when they forcibly war upon their Subjects to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, and ruin the republike; since it makes no distinction at all between the onespower and the others; but equally enjoins subjection, prohibits resistance unto both; and that only in just administration of their several authorities, not in the arbitrary unjust prosecutions of their wills and lusts.

Secondly, it follows, that the Kings Soldiers, Cavaliers and Forces now raised against Law, and armed only with illegal Commissions void in Law, as I have proved; are none of the high powers ordained of God, nor lawful Rulers or Magistrates within the meaning of this Scr • pture; and so the forcible resisting of them, and of the Kings illegal commands and designs executed by them, is no resistance of the higher powers here prohibited.

Thirdly, that t • e Ho • ses of Parliament being in truth the highest powers ordained of God in this Realm, and their just legal Ordinances, Votes, Forces, for the necessary defense of Laws, Liberties, Religion, against the Kings ill Counselors, and Malignant Popish Forces, neither may, nor ought in conscience to be resisted by the King himself, or any of his Subjects, Soldiers, under the peril of that damnation mentioned in this Chapter.

For the second, Whether the Roman Emperor in Paul's time was the highest Sovereign power in the Roman State, or not? It is taken for granted by Doctor Ferne and other opposites, that he was, as a thing past doubt, the Senate and people (as they say) having resigned up their power to the Emperor. But this no doubt is a gross error, (which I have largely refuted in the Appendix, and therefore shall be the briefer here) derived from some civil Lawyers; who out of Justinian. Digest. lib. 2. Tet. 2. and Instit. Tit. 2. falsely affirm, that Lege Regia; by the regal Law the Senate and people transferred all their Empire and power unto the Emperor. For first the Senate and people (as Albericus Gentilis well observes) did not by this Law give the Emperor all power and command to dispose of them, or the lands and revenues of the Empire, as he pleased; but only to govern them according to their Laws, as men; not to slay and alienate them as beasts. Thus reason dictates, so the words of the Law sound. Divines are deceived, Lawyers flatter, who persuade, that all things are lawful to Princes, and that their power is highest and free. It is ridiculous to affirm, that absolute power over the subjects belongs to Popes; which belongs not to the Emperors themselves over the Italians, from whom they derive it. Imagine therefore that the Emperor had a power never so free, yet it is not of dominion, but of administration. And he who hath but a free administration hath not the power of donation. (e) Agardian is then reputed instead of a Lord, cum tutelam administrat, non cum pupillum spoliat; when he rightly administers his tutelage, not when he spoils his pupil. So Gentilis. If then the Emperors had only a free legal administration, not an absolute dominion; granted them by the people, then this sovereign power still resided in the Senate and people, as Justinian Digest. lib. 1. Tit. 2. De Origin Iuris, will sufficiently manifest: Secondly, John Bodin a learned Civilian clearly proves: That the Roman Emperors were at the first; nothing else but Princes of the Commonwealth, The SOVERAIGNTY NEVERTHELESSE STILL RESTING IN THE PEOPLE, and THE SENATE: So that this Commonwealth was then to have been called a Principality; although that Seneca speaking in the person of Nero his Scholar, saith. I am the only man amongst living men, elect and chosen to be the Lieutenant of God upon earth: I am the Arbitratour of life and death; I am able of my pleasure to dispose of the state and quality of every man. True it is, that he took upon him this Sovereign authority, by force wrested from the people and Senate of Rome, ( therefore not freely given him by any Law ) but IN RIGHT HE HAD IT NOT, the State being but a very principality WHEREIN THE PEOPLE HAD THE SOVERAIGNTY. In which case, THERE IS NO DOUBT but that IT IS LAWFULL to proceed against a Tyrant by way of justice, if so men may prevail against him: or else by way of fact, and OPEN FORCE, if they may not otherwise have reason; As the Senate did in the first case against NERO: and in the other against Maximinus. So Bodin, who directly resolves, that even in Nero his reign when this Epistle was written, the highest sovereign power was not in the Emperor, but in the Senate and people: who notwithstanding this objected Text, had no doubt a lawful Right, not only to resist Nero when he turned Tyrant with open force, but likewise judicially to arraign and condemn him even to death, as they did, for his public crimes. Now that the Sovereign highest Power remained in the Senate and people notwiths • anding this Lex Regia, Marius Salamonius (an incomparable learned Roman Civilian) hath largely proved in his six Books De principatu (purposely written to refu • e the contrary common error) where he writes, First, that the Roman Emperors were created and constituted only by the Senate and people; and that the Creature should be superior to the Creator, the child to the parent, is absurd. Secondly, that the Emperors were but the Senates and people's public servants; therefore they were their Lord's; and not inferior, but superior to their servants. Thirdly, that they were subordinate and inferior to the Laws made by the Senate and people; and bound by all their Laws, but such as the Senate and people did by special Acts exempt them from. Fourthly, that the people and Senate did by special Laws create, limit, enlarge or abridge their Emperors power and jurisdiction, as they saw cause, giving sometimes more or less jurisdiction to one Emperor then another: which they could not justly do, were they not the highest Sovereign power. Finally he proves it by the very Lex Regia it self; which because rare and unknown to most, I shall here recite, to inform and reform our ignorant Court Doctors, Lawyers, with Salamonius his observations from it. Lex Regia, was not only one single Law: There was not one Law for all Emperors, but it was revived for every Emperor, yet not with the same conditions. The brass Table which yet hangeth in the Lateran Church, proves that the Royal Law was accustomed to be altered in every Princes reign AT THE PLEASVRE OF THE ROMAN PEOPLE; for it is part of the Royal Law of the Empire of Vespatian, that it should be altered: which had been void, if from the beginning of the Empire a perpetual Law had been made for all successors; the words of the Law are these.

This Law first shows, that there was not one royal Law made for all Emperors, but that for every several Emperor several Laws were necessary, containing the conditions whereupon the Principalitie was collated by the Roman people: For to Vespatian, it appears power was granted, of enlarging or settling the bounds, as it was granted to Germanicus, but not to other Princes. And in the last Chapter but one, which saith: And by those things which by any Law, &c. it is lawful to do; a larger power is given to Vespatian then to the forenamed Emperors; and that they ought to do some things, which Vespatian ought not to do by Law. Likewise by these words;