The Sovereign Power of Parliaments and Kingdoms

All that is objected against the premises, is that passage of T • rtullian, much insisted on: Colimus erg • & Imperatorē sic, quomodo & n • bis lic • t, & ipsi expedit, ut homi • em à DEO SECUNDUM; & quicquid est à De • c •• secutum, SOLO DEO MINOREM. Hoc et ipse volet: Sic enim OMNIBUS MAJOR EST, DUM SOLO VERO DEO MINOR EST. Sic & ipsis Diis major est, dum & ipsi in potestate suntejus, &c.

To which I answer, that these words only prove the Emperor in the Roman State to be the highest Officer and Magistrate under God, of any one particular person; not that he was the Sovereign highest power above the Senate and people collectively considered: And the occasion of these words will discover the Authors intention to be no other: which was this. The Christians in that age were persecuted and put to death by Scapula President of Carthage, to whom Tertullian writes this Book, because they refused to adore the Emperor for a God, to swear by his Genius, and to observe his solemnities and triumphs in an Eth • icall manner; as is evident by the words preceding this passage: Sic & circa Majestatem Imperatoris infamamur, &c. and by sundry notable passges in his Apologeticus. In answer to which accusation Tertullian reasons in the Christians behalf; that though they adored not the Emperor as a God; yet they reverenced him as a man next under God; as one only less then God; as one grea • er then all others, whiles less only then the true God, and greater then the Idol God's themselves, who were in the Emperors power, &c. Here was no other thing in question; but whether the Emperor were to be adored as God? not, whether he or the Roman Senate and people were the greatest highest Sovereign power? And the answer being, that he was but a man next under God, above any other particular officer in the Roman State; is no proof at all, that he was paramount the whole Senate and people collectively considered, or of greater Sovereign power then the • ; which the premises clearly disprove. Add; that this Father in his Apology thus censures the Pagan Romans for their gross flattery of their Emperors whom they feared more then their God's, appliable to our present times; Siquidem majore formid • ne & callidiore timiditate Caesarem observatis, quam ipsum de Olympo Iovem, &c. • deo & in isto irreligiosi erga deos vestros deprehendimini, cum plus timoris, hum • no Domino dic • tis; citius denique apud vos per omnes Deos, quam per unum genium Caesaris pejeratur▪ Then he adds, Interest hominis Deo cedere; satis • abeat appellari Imperator: gr •• nde & hoc nomen est, quod a Deo tradetur: negat illum imperatorem qui deum dicit; nist homo sit, non est imperator. Hominem se esse etiam triumphans in illo sublimissimo curru admonetur. Suggeritur enimei a tergo, Respice post te; hominem memento t • . Etiam hoc magis gaudet tanta se gloria coruscare, ut illi admonitio conditionis suae sit necessaria. Major est qui revocatur ne se deum existimet. Augustus imperii formator, ne Dominum quidem dici se volebat: et hoc enim Dei est cognomen. Dicam plane Imperato • em Dominum, sed m • re communi, sed quando non cogor, ut Dominum D • i vice dicam. Concluding thus: Nullum bonum sub ex • eptione personarum administramus, &c. Iidem sumus Imperatoribus qui & vicinis nostris. Male enim velle, male face • e, male dicere, male cogitare de quoquam ex aequo vetamur, Quod • unque non licet in Imperatorem, id nec in quenquam: quod in neminem, eo forsitan magis nec in ipsum qui per deum t • ntus est, &c. From which it is evident, that the Christians did not defy nor flatter their Emperors more then was meet, and deemed they might not resist them only in such cases where they might resist no others, and so by consequence lawfully resist them, where it was lawful for them to resist other private men who did injuriously assault them.

If then the Roman Emperors were not the highest. Sovereign power in the Roman State when Paul writ this Epistle, but the Roman Senate and State, as I have cleared: and if the Parliament, not the King, be the supremest Sovereign power in our Realm, as I have abundantly manifested; then this objected Text (so much insisted on by our opposites) could no ways extend to the Roman Senate, State, or our English Parliament, who are the very higher powers themselves, and proves most fatal and destructive to their cause of any other, even by their own Argument, which I shall thus doubly discharge upon them.

First, that power which is the highest and most sovereign Authority in any State or kingdom by the Apostles and our Antagonists own doctrine, even in point of conscience, neither may, nor ought in what case soever (say our opposites) to be forcibly resisted, either in their persons, ordinances, commands, instruments, offices, or Armed Soldiers, by any inferior powers, persons or subjects whatsoever, especially when their proceedings are just and legal, under pain of temporal and eternal condemnation. But the Senate among the Romans, not the Emperor; and the Parliament in England, not the King, really were and are the higher Powers and most sovereign Authority. Therefore by the Apostles own Doctrine even in point of conscience, they neither may nor ought to be disobeyed or forcibly resisted in any case whatsoever, either in their Persons, Ordinances, Commands, Instruments, Officers, or Armed Soldiers, by the King himself, his Counselors, Armies, Cavaliers, or by any inferior powers, persons, or Subjects whatsoever, especially when their proceedings are just and legal, (as hitherto they have been) under pain of temporal and eternal condemnation. I hope the Doctor and his Camerads will now beshrew themselves that ever they meddled with this Text, and made such a halter to strangle their own treacherous cause, and those who have taken up arms in its defense.

Secondly, that Power which is simply highest and supreme in any State, may lawfully with good conscience take up Arms to resist or suppress any other power, that shall take up arms to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, the Republic, or the ju • t Rights and Privileges of the Subject, or of this higher power. This is our opposites own argumentation. Therefore the Parliament being in verity the highest supreme Power in our State, may lawfully with good conscience take up Arms to resist or suppress his Majesty's Malignant, Popish Forces, or any other power which already hath, or hereafter shall be raised to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, the Republic, just Rights and Privileges of Parliament, or the Subjects; and every man with safe conscience may cheerfully serve in such a war, upon the Parliaments encouragement or command, without guilt of treason, or rebellion either in Law or Conscience.

For the third Question; Whether Tyrants or unjust oppressing Magistrates, as they are such, be within the intendment of this Text, and not to be resisted in any case? I have fully cleared this before from the occasion, scope and arguments used in this Chapter; that they are not within the compass of this Text; as they are such, and may be resisted in their Tyranny and oppressions notwiths • anding this inhibition; I shall not repeat, but only fortify this Position with some new reasons and authorities.

First then, that which is not the ordinance of God, but rather of the Devil, and the me • re sin and enormity of the Governor himself, not of the Government, is not within the intention of this Text, and may lawfully be resisted without any violation of it. But Tyrants and unjust oppressing Magistrates as they are such, are not God's ordinance, but rather the Devils▪ and their Tyranny and oppression is only the sin and enormity of the Governors themselves, not of the government; A truth granted by all men: Therefore they are not within the compass of this Text, and may lawfully be resisted without any violation of it.

Secondly, that which is no point of the Magistrates lawful power ordained of God, but diametrally repugnant to it, cannot be within the meaning of this Text, and may lawfully be resisted; but the tyranny, oppression, rapine, and violence of lawless Kings and Magistrates are such, as all must and do acknowledge. Ergo, they are not within the verge and compass of this Text, and may lawfully be resisted.

Thirdly, all powers intended in the Text, are not only ordained, but ordered of God, that is, (as Pareus with others observe) they are circumscribed & bounded with certain Rules or Laws of justice and honesty, within which they must contain themselves, else they exorbitate from God's ordinance when they pass beyond these limits, and become none of God's; This the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (which Arias Montanus and others render, ordinatae, and the Margin of our English Bibles, are ordered of God;) doth sufficiently warrant being coupled with the subsequent limitations; For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil, &c. they are God's Ministers attending continually on this very thing. Now the Tyranny and oppression of Kings and other Rulers, are mere exorbitances, arbitrary illegal actions, exceeding the bounds of justice and honesty prescribed by the Laws of God and men. Therefore not within the limits of this Text, and resistible.

Fourthly, it is generally accorded by all Commentators, that though the lawful power of Princes or other Magistrates degenerating unto Tyrants, be of God, and not to be resisted; yet the Tyranny it self, and abuse of this power is of Satan, not of God, and the vice of the persons only, not of the Power it self; whence they conclude, that Tyrants are not within the meaning of this Scripture. So Origen, Pareus, Willet, with m •• t others on this Text; and Zwingli most expressly Explanatio Artic. 41. Tom. 1. f. 82. 83. where he complains, that many Tyrants, cheat, steal, rob, slay, plunder, and attempt anything against their subjects to oppress them; assuming a pretext and veil of their ma • ice from this Text of Paul. Yea Dominicus Soto, Cajetan, Pererius, and other Popish commentators on this place observe; that Paul adds this Epithet, of higher or excelling powers (omitted by him in other parallel Texts) of purpose to exclude Tyrants, who are no excelling Lord's, nor lawful Powers; reigning oft times by God's permission for the people's punishment; not by his ordination for their good: and blame Bucer for saying, that Tyrants power is from God, as if he were the author of sin and Tyranny.

This then fully answers that absurd error of Docto Ferne, wherein all his force is placed: That the Powers in Paul's days which he here prohibits to resist, were subverters of that which was good; and the Roman Emperors Tyrants: where he sottishly confounds the tyranny, lusts, and vices of the Emperors persons, which were detestable, with their power it self, which was good and commendable; as if the Imperial power it self was ill, because Nero was ill, and was therefore justly condemned to death by the Roman Senate, as a public enemy to the Roman State, though they approved and continued his just Imperial principality, which lasted in succession for many hundred years after his censure, death. To which I shall only add; that though Nero himself were a Tyrant, yet the Roman Senate, and all their Inferior Offices were not Tyrants; many of them, no doubt, being just and upright Magistrates. The Precept therefore being thus in the general, and the plural number, Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers; nor personal; let them be subject to Nero; or special, to the Roman Emperor (whom Paul no doubt would have specified, had he specially intended them, as our opposites fondly dream;) we may safely conclude, that the Apostle intended it only of lawful powers and Magistrates, not of Nero or other Tyrants: And writ this to Christians only, to whom he dedicates this Epistle, witness Ch. 1. V. 7. To all that be at Rome beloved of God, called to be Saints, &c. not • o Pagan Romans, as the Doctor dreams, to whom he writes not; much less to the Roman Senate, who were then the sovereign power; and therefore could be subject to no other but themselves. Precepts of obedience to children and Servants, concern not parents and matters as such, in point of submission or obedience.

For the fourth Quere: Whether Kings and Kingdoms be God's ordinance; or an institution Iure divino, not a human ordinance, instituted Iure • umano? or, how far divine or human? Is a necessary considerable question grounded on this Text▪ and very needful to be discussed to clear the present controversy.

Some of our opposites are so intoxicated with the divinity of Monarchy, as they confidently determine; hat the efficient cause of royal Monarchical power is only God; not the people. That Kings receive no power or regal Authority from the people, but from God alone; That the power of Kings is not a human, but a divine power, of which God only is the efficient cause. That the people do not make the King, but God properly and absolutely; this power, right and authority he hath from God. That the King hath no dominion and power from his Subjects by way of trust, but from God, from whom he hath his kingdom and power, so • hat by Idolatry and oppression, he breaks not the trust reposed in him by hi • Subjects, because the people HAVE COMMITTED NOTHING TO HIS CHARGE, but God only, &c. For proof whereof they produce Prov. 8. 15. By me Kings reign, Dan. 2. 21. God removeth Kings and setteth up Kings, Dan. 4. 17. 25. The most high ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will; and setteth up over it the basest of men, with Hos. 13. 11. 1 Sam. 10. 1. Ier. 27. 5, 6, 7. Isaiah 45. 1, 2. and other Texts.

To this question distinctly, answer and dissipate these gross erroneous Paradoxes; we must distinguish:

First, between, Government it self in general, and kingly or other kinds of government, in special, (as our opposites distinguish between, a Sabbath, and the Sabbath; the first they say is moral and of divine institution, the later not.)

Secondly, between the Regal power of Kings, the persons invested with this power, the manner of obtaining, and the administration of their power.

Thirdly, of God's manner of instituting and ordaining things; which is twofold, immediately by himself, mediately by others. And these institutions of both kinds are either universal, extending to all places, Nations; or particular, concerning some Countries, and Nations only, and not others; Perpetual forever, or temporal only for some set time: Immutable, not capable of the least alteration; or mutable, and that either at the pleasure of God only; or at the will of men, when they shall see just cause, either in part or in whole.

Fourthly, in what several senses things may be said to be of God. First, in respect of his own immediate institution. Secondly, of his general or special commands. Thirdly, of his general or special disposing providence, without any special institution or command. Fourthly, of his approbation of, assent unto, and blessing on the mere institutions of men. Fifthly, of his permission only.

To apply these distinctions to the present occas • on.

First, it is clear, that power and government in general are God's own institution; who as he hath appointed (in the great fabric of the world a certain constant form of government and subordination of one creature to another) so he hath for the good of mankind, appointed that there should be some form of government or other among men in the world; which in respect of families he hath specially and universally d • creed, as that the wife should be subject to the husband, the children to the parents, the servants to their masters; but in regard of Commonweales, or Nations, he hath left it arbitrary and indefinite, leaving every Nation and Country free liberty to elect such a public politic form of government, as themselves should judge most expedient for their public good, and that mutable (since all human things are so) as they should see just occasion, not prescribing any sempiternall, immutable form of government to any particular Nations, Regions, much less to all the world.

Secondly, government in general being thus of God, but the kinds of it thus left arbitrary to men's institution and free election; the particular governments instituted by any Nation for the better regulating of their lives, the preservation of human society, and advancement of God's glory, may be truly said in some sense to be of God, though instituted, invented by men. Not because God himself did immediately ordain or prescribe them by special command to all, or any one people: or because God himself did immediately ordain or prescribe them by special command to this, all, or any one people: but because he by his general or special providence did direct this Nation to make choice of such a government, or gave them wisdom to invent and settle it, as most commodious for their republike, till they should see cause to alter it: or because he blessed and approved it, when invented and received by them.

Thirdly, Kingly powers, Kingdoms, Kings (the things now in question) are, and may be said to be of God, and ordained of God, in no other manner or sense, then all other particular Governments or Magistrates are. For this Text of the Romans, speaking only of the higher powers, the powers that are, and of Rulers; as doth that place of Titus 3. 1. And the Text of Prov. 8. 15, 16. (so much relied on by the objectors) extending as well to all subordinate Rulers as Kings; witness the subsequent words, By me Kings reign, and Princes decree justice: by me Princes rule AND NOBLES, yea ALL THE JUDGES OF THE EARTH; (that is, all Magistrates whatsoever) it cannot but be yielded; that all and every lawful kind of government, all lawful Rulers and Magistrates of what sort soever are of God's ordination, and his ordinance, as far forth as Monarchies are; and what is truly affirmable of the one, is of the other too.

These generals thus premised as indubitable; I say first of all: That Monarchy or regal power is not of God, nor yet God's ordinance by way of immediate divine institution or special command from God's own free motion, as our opposites affirm it.

For first, God himself never immediately instituted a royal Monarchical government in any Nation whatsoever, no not among his own people; whose government was at first Paternall and Pa • riarchicall; next Aristocratical; then Regal; not by God's immediate institution and vol ••• ary designation; but by the people's earnest importunity, contrary 〈…〉 as is evident by 1 Sam. c. 8, and 9, and 10, and 11. Hos. 8. 4. and the Appendix.

Secondly, All Poli • icians, and Historians grant, that the original erection of all Monarchies was either by the people's free consent and ordination; or by Tyranny and usurpation; or by conquest; none by divine institution or special command from God: And it must needs be so, because most kingdoms were primitively erected, either among Pagan Nations and States, who knew not God nor his Word, or among Christian States since special commands and Revelations from heaven ceased: which if our opposites deny; I shall desire them to instance in any one Monarchy in the world, instituted immediately by God himself, or by special command from his own free motion: Till this be done, all their asseverations will be accounted fabulous.

Thirdly, if Regal power be God's ordinance by way of divine immediate institution and command; then this institution of Regal Monarchy, with the several Prerogatives, and boundaries of it, would appear in some Text of Scripture, and this government would be specially and perpetually prescribed either to all, or some particular Nations by God himself. But this institution, with the general Prerogatives and bounds of Regal Authority, are nowhere extant in Scripture, neither this form of government therein prescribed, but left arbitrary to all or any Nation in particular, for ought any man can demonstrate. Those Texts which concern the Kings of the Israelites in point of sovereignty, and Prerogative, being judicial only, and peculiar to that Nation, nor moral, or extending unto others. Therefore it is not God's ordinance by way of divine immediate institution, or command.

Fourthly, if it were of divine ordination in this sense; then the Regal power and authority of all Kings and Monarchs in the world should be equal, yea the very same; and there should be no different kind of Kings; as the divine authority of all Ministers (being of God's own institution by one and the same commission) is one and the same: But the regal power and jurisdiction of all Kings and Monarchies in the world is not equal nor the same; for some have far greater authority then others; there are many different sorts of Kings in the world, some only annual, • thers for life, others hereditary, others at will, deposible at the people's pleasures when ever they offended, (Such were the Kings of the Vandalls in Africa, of the Goths in Spain; cum ipsos deponerent populi quoties displicuissent: such the Kings of the Heruli (Procopius, Gothieorum) Of the Lombards, Paulus Warnafredi, l. 4. & 6. Of the Burgundians, Ammianus, 11. lib. 28. Of the Moldavians, Laonichus Chalcocandylas; the King of Agadis among the Africans, Ioannis Leo, lib. 7. Of the Quadi and Iazyges (in excerptis Dionis) with sundry others hereafter mentioned.) Some elective, others successive, some conditional, others absolute, as I have plentifully mentioned in the Appendix. Therefore they are not of divine ordination in the objectors sense.

Fifthly, If Kings were of divine ordination in this sense, then their kingdoms and people upon their Elections, Institutions and Coronations could not justly prescribe any conditions, oaths or covenants to them, upon promise of performance whereof they only accept of them to be their Kings, refusing else to admit them to reign over them; and such conditions, oaths, covenants, would be mere nullities, since men have no power at all to detract from God's own divine institutions, or to annex any conditions or restrictions to them. But our Antagonists themselves dare not aver, that Kingdoms and Nations upon their Kings Coronations, Institutions and elections may not lawfully prescribe conditions, oaths, and limitations to them, upon promise of performance whereof they only submitted to them as their Sovereigns, it being the received practice of our own, of all or most other Kingdoms whatsoever, especially elective ones, and confirmed by divine Authority, 2 Chron. 10. 1. to 19. Therefore they are not of divine institution in the objected sense.

Sixthly, All Lawyers and most Orthodox Divines determine, that Kings have no other just or lawful royal Authority, but that which the Laws and customs of their Kingdoms allot them, and that the Law only makes them Kings, from which if they exorbitate they become Tyrants and cease to be Kings. Their Royal authority therefore is of human institution properly, not Divine; from their people, who both elect, constitute them Kings, and give them all their regal Authority by human Laws enacted, not from God as the only efficient cau • e.

Seventhly, All Kingdoms, Monarchies, Policies, are mutable and variable in themselves, while they continue such; yea, temporary and alterable into other forms of Government by public consent, if there be just cause; without any immediate command or alteration made by God himself, or his divine authority: There being no positive Law of God confining any Nation, (whose human earthly condition is still variable) to a Monarchical or any other constant form of government only, much less for perpetuity without variation. Therefore, they are not of divine institution in this sense.

Eighthly, St. Peter expressly defines Kings and Monarchies, in respect of their institution, to be human creatures, or institutions, 1 Pet. 2. 13. Submit yourselves to every ORDINANCE OF MAN for the Lord's sake; whet • er it be to the King, as supreme, &c. And they are common to Pagans who know not God, as well as to Christians. Therefore, they are not simply divine, but human Ordinances.

Ninthly, Our Antigonists will yield, that other forms of Government, whether Aristocratical, Oligarchicall, Democratical, or mixed of all three, are not absolutely and immediately of divine institution; nor yet Dukes, Principalities, with other inferior Rulers, though the Apostle in this Text makes them all equally God's Ordinance, and Divine. Therefore Monarchy, Kings and Kingdoms are not so.

Tenthly, The very Text it self seems to intimate, that Royalties and higher powers are not of God, by way of original or immediate institution • , or command: for the Apostle saith not; that all powers whatsoever were originally instituted and ordained by God himself; but, There is no power but of God; The powers that be, are (not were at first) ordained (or rather, ordered) of God: that is; where powers and Governments are once erected by men, through God's general or special providence, there God approves and orders them for the good of men.

2. If Monarchies, and Kings themselves be not of divine institution, and God's ordinance in the former sense, as is most apparent: & Aristotle, Plato, all Politicians grant; Then they are so only in some other sense, in what I shall truly inform you.

First, They are of God, and his Ordinance, by way of imitation, as derived from God's own form of Government, which is Monarchical; Whence he is called, The only God, God alone, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lord's.

Secondly, By way of approbation; He approves and allows this kind of Government where it is re •• ived, as well as other forms.

Thirdly, by way of direction, he gives divers general rules and directions to Kings (and to other Rulers and Magistrates also as well as them) in his sacred word how they ought to demean themselves, towards him and their Subjects; and likewise to Subjects, how they should carry themselves towards their Kings; and all other Rulers and Governors temporal or spiritual: in which sense they may be properly said, to be ordered and ordained too, of God.

Fourthly, By way of special providence and incitation; God excites and moves some people to make choice of Kings, and Monarchical forms of Government, rather than others; and to elect one man or family to that dignity rather than others, yea his providence mightily rules and sways in the changes, the elections, actions, counsels, affairs of Monarchies, Kingdoms, Kings, States, to order them for his own glory, the Kings, the Subjects good or ill, in ways of Justice or Mercy; as is evident by Dan. 2. 21. c. 4. 17. 25. Hos. 13. 11. Ier. 27. 5, 6, 7. Isa. 45. 1, 2, 3. c. 10. 5. to 20. Psal. 110. 5. Psal. 113. 7, 8. Job 12. 18. to 25. Dan. 5. 26. 28. The genuine d • ift of all these Texts.

Fifthly, Kings may be said to be of God and his Ordinance, because they, (and so all other Rulers, Judges, Magistrates as well as they, in respect of their representation and the true end of Government) are said to be God's; to be God's Ministers and Vicegerents; to sit upon God's Throne, and ought to reign, to judge for God, and to rule God's people according to God's Word, with such justice, equity, integrity as God himself would Governe them. Exod. 22. 28. 2 Chron. 9. 8. Rom. 13. 4, 5. 2 Sam. 23. 3. Psal. 78. 72, 73, 74 2 Sam. 5. 2. Prov. 8. 15, 18. Psal. 82. 1. 1 Cor. 8. 5. Isa. 32. 1. c. 9. 7. c. 16. 5. Deut. 1. 17.

Sixthly, Ill Kings, and Tyrants, may be said to be of God, by way of permission, and of Ordination too, in reference to the people's punishment, Job 34. 30. Hos. 13. 11. 1 Sam. 8. 18. In these regards (common to all other Governors and lawful Governments, as well as Kings and Monarchies) Kings and Kingly Authority, are and may be said to be of God, and God's Ordinance; yet not immediately, or properly in the first acception, here refuted, but so as that still they are really the institutions and ordinances of men, of human, not divine right, and authority.

As for the objected Scriptures to prove Kings jure Divino, as Prov. 8. 15. By me Kings Reign, &c. Ergo, they are of immediate divine institution, and have all their authority from God, not from the people, and may in no case be resisted, censured, deposed, or put to death for any misdemeanors; the consequences, thence inferred.

I answer, First, That this Text speaks only of the promotion or Reign of Kings; not of the erection and power of Monarchies; and so do Daniel. 2. 21. c. 4. 17. 25. c. 5. 2 • . 28. with the other objected Scriptures.

Secondly, If it be meant of the rule of Kings; then true it is, that good Kings Reign by God's direction, according to his word, executing justice, and judgment, 〈◊〉 he enjoins them; But then it is not true of wicked Kings and Tyrants, who though they Reign by God's Providence or permission, yet they rule not by his word and will as he prescribesthem.

Thirdly, If it be meant of the means and manner of Kings coming to their Kingdoms, as I conceive it is, and the Texts of Daniel persuade:

True it is: first, That some Kings Reigned and came to the Crown by God's immediate nomination and designation, as Saul, David, Solomon, Jeroboam, Jehu, and Hazael did: But that all, or most did heretofore, or now do so, especially in Pagan Kingdoms, is a notorious falsehood.

Secondly, it is true, That most lawful Kings in hereditary or elective Kingdoms, come to their Crowns, and Reign; though not by God's immediate nomination, yet by his ordinary or special providence, (though it be untrue of Usurpers, and Tyrants who come to Reign by Treason, Murder, or other unlawful means; and so by God's permission only, rather than his providence: and then the sense of the place is but this; That Kings receive their Crowns, and Reign by God's general, or more special providence: Which I think is the full and proper sense of the place. In this sense C. Plinius Seeundus a heathen in his admirable Panegyric to the Emperor Trajan, a Pagan, Rhetorizeth thus of him: Quid enim praestabilius est, aut pulchrius munus Deorum, quam castus & sanctus & Diis simillimus Princeps? Ac si adhuc dubium fuisset sort casuque Rectores terris, an aliquo numine darentur, Principem tamen nostrum liqueret DIVINITUS CONSTITUTUM. Non enim occulta potestate fatorum, sed ab Jove ipso, coram ac palam repertus, electus est, &c. Which Tertullian thus seconds, speaking even of the Roman Pagan Emperors. Inde est Imperator, under & homo antequam Imperator; inde Potestas ei, unde & spiritus: Per Deum tantus est: So Irenaeus, Cujus jussu homines nascuntur, hujus jussu & Reges constituuntur. And Diodorus Siculus of the Egyptians; Existimant non SINE DIVINA QUADAM PROVIDENTIA, pervenisse ad summam de omnibus Potestatem: So the Esses, hold this opinion, Non obtingit cuiquam Imperium sine Dei cura specially: So Vitigis, Omnis Provectus, maxim Regius, ad Divinitatis munera referendus est: and Clemens Romanus, too. Regem timeto, sciens Domini esse electionem. Which Grotius de Iure Belli, l. 1. c. 3. Sect. 8. confirms with other Authorities; all concurring in this, That Kings and Emperors are such only by the self-same PROVIDENCE OF GOD, by which they were men before they were Emperors; which gives them no greater Prerogative in respect of irresistibility in unjust exorbitant actions, then their being men, by the self-same providence of God, gave them before they were Emperors, as Tertullian's words most clearly prove.

But what privilege this alone should yield to Kings, more than to any other Magistrates, Men or Beasts, for my part I cannot yet discern. For doth not the same Text say of Nobles, Princes, Judges, as well as of Kings, Prov. 8. 15, 16. By me Princes (put as contradistinct to Kings) decree justice; By me Princes Rule AND NOBLES, YEA ALL JUDGES OF THE EARTH? Doth not David say of all kind of Promotions whatsoever, Psal. 113. 7, 8. The Lord raiseth the poor out of the dust, and lifteth the needy out of the dunghill; that he may set him with Princes, even with the Princes of his people? And Psal. 75. 5, 6. Promotion cometh neither from the East, nor from the South; but God is the Judge; he putteth down one and setteth up another? Nay, doth not Christ inform us That the very hairs of our head are all numbered? That two sparrows are sold for a farthing, and yet one of them shall not fall on the ground without our Fathers providence? Yea doth not every man, yea every Bird, Beast, Fish, Raven, and living creature whatsoever, (as the Scripture expressly resolves) receive, enjoy their Lives, Honors, Offices, Estates, food, raiment, being, preservation, by God's general and special providence, as well as Kings their Crowns, Honors, Lives, Estates?

And is not the providence, yea are not the very Angels of God, who are all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister to them who shall be heirs of salvation, as vigtiant • ver every pious Christian (though never so mean & despicable) as over the greatest Monarch in the world? If so, as all men must necessarily acknowledge ( there being no r • spect at all of persons with God, who accepts not the persons of Princes, regards the rich no more th • n the poor, for they are all the work of his hands ) then kings reigning by the Providence of God, can of itself no more • xemp • them from resistance▪ censures, deprivations, for their dete • table public crimes, then it exempts any other Nobles, Princes, Judges, Mag • strates, Christians, or the mean • st subjects whatsoever; which I shall make good by one more unanswerable demonstration. There is not one of our Antagonists but will acknowledge, that Prie sunder the Law, and all Ministers under the Gospel, if rightly qualified, are made such not only by God's special P • ovidence, but likewise by Divine institution from God himself; Nay, Tollet, Willet, and many others on this very Text of the Romans, make a difference between the civil and Ecclesiastical Regiment and Power: for the first (say they) is so from God, that yet the institution thereof may be devised and altered by man, and therefore Peter calls it, the Ordinance of man; but the spiritual Power is immediatelly instituted by God, and no ways alterable or determinable by man: And therefore the Apostle saith Ephes. 4. 11. He gave some to be Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, &c. So that by their determination, Ministers are more God's Ordinance, and more jure Divino, then Kings; yea but few years since they all professed themselves to be as much, if not more, God's anointed then Kings; and some of our Archest Prelates made public challenges in • he open Court, That if they could not prove their Lordly Episcopacy to be Iure Divino, they would presently burn their Rochets, and lay down their Bishoprics; though they never made good their promises: & to doubt, whether the Pope and his supreme Authority be iure Divino by Christ's own immediate institution, deserves a fagot in the Roman Church: Yet not withstanding all this Divine Right and institution, our Opposites will grant, That if Popes, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Ministers preach false Heretical doctrines, oppress, wound, slay, rob, plunder the people committed by God to their cures; or attempt with force to subvert R • ligion, Laws, Liberties; or commit any capital offenses, they may not only with safe conscience be resisted, repulsed by their people, but likewise apprehended, arraigned, deprived, condemned, executed, by Lay Judges, as infinite examples in our Hi •• ories manifest, and the • xample of Abiathar the High Priest, 1 Kings 2. 26, 27. And if so, then why not Kings as well as they, or other temporal M • gist • ates, not withstanding any of the objected Texts? Either therefore our Oppo • ites must grant all Bishops, Priests, Ministers, yea, all o • her Magistrates whatsoever, as irresistible, uncensurable, undeprivable, uncondemnable, for any crimes whatsoever, as they say kings are, which they dare not do; or else make Kings as resistible, censurable, deprivable, and liable to all kinds of punishments, (by their whole Kingdoms consent in Parliament) as far forth as they, notwithstanding all the former Objections, which quite subverts their cause.

Thirdly, Kings and Kingdoms are not so God's Ordinance, as that they should be universal over all the world, and no other Government admitted; or so, as any one Nation whatsoever should be eternally tied to a Monarchical Government, without any power to alter it into an Aristocracy, or other form, upon any occasion; or so a • unalterably to continue the Sovereign power in one family alone, as not to be able to transfer it to another, when the whole State shall see just cause: Hereditary Kingdoms being but Offices of public trust for the people's good and safety, as well as elective; most of them were elective at first, and made hereditary only either by violent usurpation, or the people's voluntary assents and insti • tution, and not by any immediate divine Authority, and so alterable by their joint assents, as Zwingli, Buchanon, Mariana observe, and the Histories of most Kingdoms, the experience of all ages evidence. Which truths being generally confess • d by all Politicians, Historians, Statists; by many judicious Divines, contradicted by no one text of Scripture that I have met with which our Opposites have objected hitherto, they will find all Monarchies upon the matter, to be mere human Institutions, alterable still by that human Power which did at first erect them, and subordinate still thereto, as the Creature to its Creator; and to be God's Ordinance only in regard of special providence, and the like, a • other inferior Magistrates, Rulers are, who may be justly resisted, altered, removed, censured, notwithstanding the objected Text. From which whiles some men earnestly press, that every soul by God's own Ordinance, ought to be subject to some public • civil power, (which others saf • lie deny, since the Patria • ks, the first families of most Nations and Countries were not so, and all Nations, all people before settled publi • e governments, were erected, which in many places are not very ancient; since those whose Parents are dead, and are not by them sub • ected to a Government, are naturally free; and none bound to part with their freedom to any other, unless they see a necessity, a great advantage, and that upon such terms and conditions as they deem meet,) they involve even Kings and Emperors themselves by God's own Ordin • nce, in a subjection to a superior earthly c • vill power, to wit, to their Laws, Parliaments, Kingdoms, (which I have proved Paramount them, collectively considered) according to the common proverb Omne sub Regno graviore Regnumest; and that of Solomon (concerning oppressing Kings and Judge • ) He that is higher then the Highest considers, and there be higher then they: And so make kings • ot only resistble by their whole Kingdoms the supreme Sovereign power, but likewise subject to their Realms superior commands, and uncapable to resist their lawful power and Forces even in point of Conscience, by virtue of this very Text. And so much for the fourth Question.

For the fifth and last, What kind of resistance of the Higher powers is here prohibited? I answer briefly, That resistance is here forbidden, which is con • rary to subjection or obedience, as the words, Let every soul be subject to the higher Powers, coupled with the ensuing reason, Whosoever therefore resisteth (that is, disobeyeth, or is not subject to) the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. In the Greek there are two distinct words used, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Latin, English, French, Dutch use them both as one, without distinction: The first word signifies properly disordered, counter-ordered, on ordered against, (as Pareus, Willet, and others observe) and it is thus used by the Apostle, 2 Thess. 3. 6, 7, 11; or disobedient. 1 Tim. 1. 9. The later word signifieth properly to resist, withstand, or oppose; in which sense it is used, Matth. 5. 39. Luk • 21. 1, 5. Act. 6. 10. Rom. 9. 19. Gal. 2. 11. 2 Tim. 3. 1. Hebr. 12. 4. I am. 4. 7. chap. 5. 6. 1. Pet. 5. 9. and applied indiffer •• tly both to a spiritual, corporal, and verbal resistance of the Holy Ghost, the Devil, or men: Since▪ then the Apostle in this Text useth the Hebrew phrase Soul, not Man, Let every Soul be subject to the High • r Powers: because (as Haymo, Tollet, Willet, Soto, and most other Interpreters observe) we ought willingly and cheerfully to submit to the higher Powers, not only with our bodies, but souls and spirits too: I may hence clearly infer, that the resistance of the higher Power here prohibited as contrary to this subjection, is not only that which is corporal and violent by force of arms, as the Objectors gloss it; but that likewise which is verbal, mental, spiritual in the soul it self without the body, and no more then a mere passive resistance, or not obeying: For not to do what the higher Powers enjoin, is in verity actually to resist, to withstand them; as not to do the will, not to yield obedience to the motions, dictates of the Holy Ghost or devil is really to resist them, even in Scripture phrase: Yea, corporal resistance or opposition by way of force is only an higher degree of resistance, but not the only or proper resistance here prohibited, which relates principally to the Soul and Spirit. For as corporal forced obedience against a man's will which still holds out, is no true obedience in the esteem of God or men: and as the very essence, life of all outward obedience consisteth principally in the cheerful submission or activity of the soul or will: So a forced corporal resistance against the mind or conscience, is in a manner no resistance; and the very malignity, quintessence of all inward or outward resistance, disobedience, rests only in the mind, soul, will; and is here principally forbidden, as is evident by the 5. verse; Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath (which relates only to the body, which men's wrath can only harm in case of disobedience, Mat. 10. 28.) but also FOR CONSCIENCE SAKE, which principally, if not wholly relates unto the soul, of which the conscience is a chief-overruling part. This then being altogether irrefragable, gives our Antagonists, with Dr. Fern, an etern all overthrow, and unavoidably demonstrates the resistance of the Higher Powers here prescribed, to be only of just lawful powers in their l • st commands or punishments▪ which we must neither corporally, verbally, nor so much as mentally resist, but readily submit too with our very souls, as well as bodies: not of Tyrants or ungodly Rulers unjust oppressions, Forces, proceedings to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, which all our Opposites, all Divines whatsoever grant, we are bound in conscience passively to resist, and disobey; yea, with our Tongues to reprehend, and our Souls and spirits to oppose, detest, abhor, hate in the very highest degree of opposition, notwithstanding this inhibition: And therefore by like reason are no ways prohibited, but authorized by it, even forcibly to resist to our utmost power, have we means and opportunity so to do, as the Parliament now hath: That power and proc • edings which Christians may lawfully with good conscience, yea and are bound to resist with all their souls, minds, tongues, they justly may and must likewise resist with all their corporal might and strength; especially if they have good opportunity, public encouragements, and means to do it, as Deut. 6. 12. 1 Pet. 5. 9. Jude 3. 4. Phil. 1. 27, 28. 1 Cor. 16. 13. compared together, and with the premised Scriptures, fully evidence. But Christians may lawfully with good conscience, yea must resist with all their souls, minds, tongues, the fore-named violent proceedings of kings, Oppressors, ill Counselors and Cavaliers, and no ways submit unto them with their souls, minds, tongues, lest thereby they should approve and be partakers, with promoters of their execrable de • ignes; therefore they may and must with safe conscience resist them with all their corporal might and strength, having now opportunity, a Parliamentary public command and sufficient means to execute it. And thus have I now at last not only most clearly wrested this sword out of the hands of our great opposite Goliath's, but likewise cut off their heads, and so routed all their forces with it, as I trust they shall never be able to make head again.

Yet before I wholly take my leave of this Text, to gratify our Prelatical Clergy, I shall for a parting blow add this one observation more, That all our Popish Clermen heretofore (and many of them till this day) notwithstanding the universality of this Text, Let every soul be subject to the higher Powers, &c. not only Pretended themselves to be of right exempted from the jurisdiction, censures, taxes of Emperors, Kings, and all Civil Magistrates, (Which privileges some of our late Prelates began to revive, as the late cases of Mr. Shervill, the Major of Arundel, and some others evidence, censured for punishing drunken Priests:) but likewise held it lawful to censure, excommunicate, depose even Emperors and Kings themselves, and interdict their Kingdoms; witness not only the Popes excommunications of many Emperors and Kings, by apparent usurpation and injury; but of sundry Prelates excomunications of their own Sovereigns as of right, and putting them to open penances; as K. Suintilla, Sancho, Ramir in Spain, and others elsewhere, of which you may read divers presidents in my Appendix: The History of St. Ambrose his excommunicating the Emperor Theodosius for the bloody murder of those of Thessalonica, is so commonly known, that I need not spend time to recite it, nor yet the excommunications and censures of our King John, or Henry the 2. and 3. Suano King of Denmark (as Saxo-Grammaticus records) was not only sharply reprehended, but excommunicated in a most bold and solemn manner by one of his Bishops for his uncleanness, and murthering some eminent persons, of whom he was jealous, whiles they were at their devotions in the C • urch. This Bishop instead of meeting this King when he came to enter into the Church, with accustomed veneration, clad in his Pontisicalibus, with his Crosier Staff; kept him from entering so much as within the Court thereof; calling him not by the name of a King, which he suppressed, but a shedder of man's blood; and not content to chide him, he fixed the point of his Staff in his breast, preferring the public scandal of Religion before private society, not being ignorant, that the Offices of familiarity were one thing, the rights of Priesthood another thing, that the wickednesses of Lord's as well as servants ought to be revenged, nor are Noble-men's crimes to be more partially censured, then ignoble ones: And not content thus to repulse him, he added an execration thereunto and denounced a sentence of damnation against him in his presence, so as he left it doubtful, whether he repulsed him more valiantly with his hand, or voice. Hereupon the King considering this Act to proceed from zeal and public seve • ity against wickedness, and being confounded with the blush of his guilty conscience, forbad any to resist his violence, and patiently underwent, heard both his repulse and reprehention; After which, this King laying aside his royal Robes, put on old course apparel, desiring rather to testify his sorrow by the deformity of his habit, then his contempt by the splendor of it. And struck with so sad a sentence of the Bishop, he would not endure to carry about the ornaments of Royal Magnificence; but casting away the ensigns of Regal Majesty, he put on sack-cloth the badge of peni • ence; putting off his power likewise together with his vestment, and of a sacrilegious Tyrant, became a faithful reverencer of holy things. For returning bare-foot to the Church-porch, he cast himself prostrate in the entrance thereof, and humbly kissed the ground, suppressing, the grief which is wont most sharply to be inflicted from contempt, with shamefac' • nesse and moderation, redeeming the fault of his bloody reign with shame and penitence: After which confessing his fault, and craving pardon with tears of the Bishop, he was absolved, and then putting on his Royal Robes, admitted into the Church, and brought up to the Altar, to the exceeding joy of the people, who applauding the kings humiliation and modesty; plus poenitentia pium, quam imperio scelestum euasisse co • fessus: A memorable story of a zealous stout Prelate, and of a penitent submissive wild Prince: I shall only add to this some few domestic presidents of our Welch Kings Teudur king of Brecknock, for his perjury and murder of Elgistill, another King of that Country, was solemnly excommunicated by Gurcan the 10. Bishop of Landaffe and his Clergy, in a Synod assembled for this purpose, by uncovering the Altars, casting the Crosses and Relics on the ground, and depriving him of all Christian communion, Whereupon Teudur unable to undergo this malediction and rigorous justice, with a contrite heart, and many tears poured forth, craved pardon of his crimes, and submitted himself to the penance imposed on him according to his quality and greatness. King Clotri slaying Iuguallaun treacherously, contrary to his League and Oath, Berthgwin the 14. Bishop of Landaffe, hearing thereof, assembled a Synod of his Clergy at Landaffe, and solemnly excommunicated the King with all his Progeny and Kingdom, by uncovering the Altars, casting down the Crosses on the earth, and depriving the Country both of Baptism and the Eucharist. Whereupon the King unable to endure so great an excommunication, with great dejection submitted himself to the Bishop, and leaving his Kingdom, went on pilgrimage into foreign parts for a long space; after which returning, by the intercession of king Morcant, he obtained ab • olution from the Bishop, to whose enjoined penance he submitted himself, conferring divers Lands upon the Church. And in another Synod at Landaffe under this Bishop, King Gurcan, for living incestuously with his Mother-in-law was solemnly excommunicated in form aforesaid; whereupon he craved pardon, resolved to put away his Mother-in-law, promised satisfaction by k. • udhail his Intercessor; upon which he was absolved, upon promise of amendment of life, with fasting, prayer and alms; after which he bestowed divers Lands on the Church. Houell king of Gleuissig, contrary to his Oath & League, treacherously circumverring and slaying Gallun, hereupon Cerenhir the 18. Bishop of Landaffe, calling a Synod, solemnly excommunicated him by laying all the crosses on the ground, overturning the Bells, taking the Relics from the Altar and casting them on the ground, depriving him of all Christian communion, under which excommunication he remained almost a whole years space; After which, this king came bare-foot to the Bishop, imploring his absolution from this sentence with many tears, which he obtained after publke penance enoyned. Not long after the same Bishop and his Clergy in another Synod, for the like crime, in the self-same form excommunicated Ili son of Conblus, till he came bare-footed with tears and prayed absolution; which upon performance of enjoined penance, promise of future reformation, with prayers, fasting, alms, and the settling of some Lands on the Church, was granted him by the Bishop. So Loumarch son of Cargnocaun, was in a full Synod excommunicated by Gulfrid the 20. Bishop of this See, for violating the patrimony of the Church; and king Brochuail, with his family convented before a Syno • e, threatened Excommunication, enjoined Penance and satisfaction by the Synod, for some injuries offered to to Ciueilliauc the two and twentieth Bishop of Landaffe. Mauric King of of Glamorgan was excommunicated by Joseph the eight and twentieth Bishop of Landaffe, for treach • rously putting out the eyes of Etguin during the truce between them; After which he was again publicly exc • mmunicated in a Synod, for violating the Sanctuary of the Church of Landaffe, and hurting some of this Bishops servants; and not absolved till he made his submission, and did his Penance, and gave some la • ds to the Church for satisfaction of these offense. Thus Calgucam King of Morganauc, and his whole family were solemnly excommunicated by Her • wald the nine and twentieth Bishop of Landaffe in a Synod of all his Clergy, only because one of the Kings followers being drunk, laid violent hands upon Bathutis the Bishops Physician and Kinsman on Christmas day, Anno 1056. Whereupon all the Crosses and Relics were cast to the ground, the Bells overturned, the Church doors stopped up with thorns, so as they continued without a Pastor and Divine Service day and night for a long season, till the King (though innocent) submitted himself to the Bishop; and to obtain his absolution, gave Hen • inguinna to him and his Successors forever, free from all secular and royal services, in the presence of all the Clergy and people. So Richard the tenth Bishop of Bangor, excommunicated David ap Lhewelin, Prince of Wales, for detaining his brother Griffith prisoner, contrary to his Oath, repairing to him upon the Bishops word for his safe return, who never left vexing him, till he had delivered him up to to the King of England's hands. Many such presidents of Prelates censuring and excommunicating their Kings occur in Story, which for brevity I pretermit; only I shall inform you, that John Stratford Archbishop of Canterbury, in the 14. year of K. Edw. 3, contesting with this King, and excommunicating divers of his followers, and all the infringers of the Churches Liberties, presumed to write thus unto his Sovereign; There are two things by which the world is principally governed, The sacred Pontifical authority, and the royal power, of which the Priesthood is by so much the more weighty, ponderous, and sublima, by how much they are to give an account of kings themselves at the Divine audit: And therefore the kings Majesty ought to know, that you ought to depend on their judgment, not they to be regulated according to your will. For who doubteth that the priests of Christ are accounted the FATHERS AND MASTERS of Kings, Princes, and all faithful Christians? Is it not known to be a part of miserable madness, if the son should endeavor to subjugate the Father, the servant the master to himself? The Canonical authority of Scriptures testifieth, that divers Pontiffs have excommunicated, some of them Kings, others Emperors: And if you require somewhat in special of the persons of Princes; Saint Innocent smote the Emperor Archadius with the sword of excommunication, because he consented that Saint John Chrysostom should be violently expelled from his See. Likewise Saint Ambrose Archbishop of Milan, for a fault which seemednot so heinous to other priests, excommunicated the Emperor Theodosius the great: From which sentence, having first given condign satisfation, he afterwards deserved to be absolved; and many such like examples may be alleged, both more certain for time, and nearer for place. Therefore no Bishops whatsoever neither may nor ought to be punished by the secular Power, if they chance to offend through human frailty: For it is the duty of a good and religious Prince to honor the Priests of God, and defend them with greatest reverence, inimitation of the Pious Prince of most happy memory, Constantine, saying, when the cause of Priests was brought before him, You cannot be judged by any, to wit, of the secular judges, who are reserved to the judgment of God alone; according to the assertion of the Apostle (very ill applied) saying, The spiritual man is judged of no man, 1 Corinth. 2. 15. (Not mean of Bishops or Clergy-men, but Saints alone, endued with God's Spirit, not of judging in courts of justice, but of discerning spiritual things, and their own spiritual Estates, as the Context resolves.) Thus and much more this Prelate, who notwithstanding this text of the Romans, pleads an exemption of all Bishops and Priests from the kings secular power, by Divine Authority, and arrogates to Priest and Prelates, a iudiciary lawful power over Kings themselves, to excommunicate and censure them for their offenses. And to descend to later times, even since the the Reformation of Religion here, John Bridges Dean of Sarum, and Bishop of Oxfort, even in his Book entitled, The supremacy of Christian Princes over all persons throughout their Dominions, in all causes so well Ecclesiastical as spiritual, printed at London, 1573. p. 1095. writes thus; But who denies this (M. Saunders) that a godly Bishop may upon great and urgent occasion, if it shall be necessary to edify God's Church, and there be no other remedy, flee to this last censure of Excommunication AGAINST A WICKED KING? Making it a thing not questionable by our Prelates and Clergy, that they may in such a case lawfully excommunicate the King himself: And Doctor Bilson Bishop of Winchester, in his True difference between Christian subjection and unchristian Rebellion, dedicated to Queen Elizabeth herself, printed at Oxford, 1595. Part. 3. Page 369. to 378. grants, That Emperors, Kings and Princes, may in some cases be Excommunicated and kept from the Lord's Table by their Bishops; and grants, That with Heretics and Apostates, be THEY PRINCES or private men, no Christian Pastor nor people may Communicate: Neither find I any Bishop o • Court Doctor of the contrary opinion, but all of them readily subscribe hereto. If then not only the ill Counselors and Instruments of Kings, but Kings and Emperors themselves, may thus not only be lawfully, justly resisted, but actually smitten and excommunicated by their Bishops and Clergy, with the spiritual sword, for their notorious crimes and wickednesses, notwithstanding this inhibition; (which Valentinian the Emperor confessed; and therefore desired, that such a Bishop should be chosen and elected in Milan after Auxentius, as he himself might really and cordially submit to him and his reprehensions, since he must sometimes needserre as a man, as to the medicine of souls; as he did to Ambrose, when he was elected Bishop there;) why they may not likewise be resisted by their Laity in the precedent cases with the temporal sword, and subjected unto the censures of the whole Kingdoms and Parliaments, transce • ds my shallow apprehension to conceive, there being as great, if not greater, or the very self-same reason for the lawfulness of the one, as of the other. And till our Opposites shall produce a substantial difference between these cases, or disclaim this their practice and doctrine of the lawfulness of excommunicating Kings and Emperors, they must give me and others liberty to conceiye, they have quite lost and yielded up the cause they now contend for, notwithstanding this chief Text of Roma • es 13. the ground of all their strength at first, but now of their ruin.

The tenth Objection is this, that of 1 Pet. 2, 13, 14, 15, 16. Submit yourselves to every ORDINANCE OF MAN for the Lord's sake, whether it be to The King AS SVPREAME, or unto Governors, as unto them that are scut by him (to wit, by God, not the King, as the distribution manifests, and Rom. 13. 1, 2, 3, 4.) For the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well, &c. Fear God, Honor the King; we must submit to Kings and honor Kings, who are the supreme Governors; therefore we may in no case forcibly resist them or their Officers, though they degenerate into Tyrants.

To which I answer; that this is a mere inconsequent; since the submission here enjoined is but to such Kings, who are punishers of evil doers, and praisers of those that do well; which the Apostle makes the Ground and motive to submission; therefore this text extends not to Tyrants and oppressors, who do quite contrary. We must submit to Kings when they rule well and justly, is all the Apostle here affirms; Ergo we must submit to, and not resist them in any their violent courses to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties; is mere non-sense both in Law, Divinity, and common Reason.

If any reply, as they do, that the Apostle, verse. 18, 19, 20. Bids servants be subject to their Masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward: For this is thank-worthy, if a man for conscience towards God endure grief suffering wrongfully, &c. Ergo this is meant of evil Magistrates and Kings, as well as good. I answer 1. That the Apostles speaks it only of evil • asters not Kings; of servants, not subjects; there being a great difference between servants, Apprentices, Villaines, and free-borne subjects, as all men know, the one being under the arbitrary rule and government of their Masters; the other only under the just, settled, legal Government of their Princes, according to the Laws of the Realm: S • condly, this is meant only of private personal injuries, and undue corrections of Masters given to servants without just cause, as verse. 20. For what glory is it, if when ye be BVFFETED FOR your faults, &c. intimates: not of public injuries and oppressions of Magistrates, which endanger the whole Church and State. A Christian servant or subject must patiently endure private undue corrections of a froward Master or King: Ergo whole Kingdoms and Parliaments, must patiently without resistance suffer their kings and evil Instruments to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, Realms, (the proper deduction • een) is but a ridiculous conclusion.

Secondly, This Text enjoins no more subjection to kings, then to any other Magistrates; as the words: Submit yourselves TO EVERY ORDINANCE of Man; Or unto Governors, &c. prove past all contradiction; And verse 6 which bids us, Honor the King; bids 〈◊〉 first in direct terms, HONOR ALL MEN; to wit, All Magistrates at least, if not all men in general, as such: There is then no special Prerogative of irresistability given to kings by this Text in injurious violent courses, more then there is to any other Magistrate or person whatsoever; God giving no man any Authority to injure others without resistance, especially if they assault their persons or • nvade their Estates to ruin them: Since then inferior Officers, and other men may be forc • bly resisted when they actually attempt by force to ruin Religion, Laws, Liberties, the republike, a • I have proved, and our Antagonists must grant; by the self-same reason kings may be resisted too, notwithstanding anything in this Text, which attributes no more irresistability or authority to Kings, then unto other Magistrates.

Thirdly, Kings are here expressly called; AN ORDINANCE OF MAN, not God; as I have formerly proved them to be. If so; I then appeal to the consciences of our fiercest Antagonists, whether they do believe in their consciences, or dare take their Oaths upon it; That ever any people or Nation in the world, or our Ancestors at first, did appoint any Kings or Governors over them, to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties; or intend to give them such an unlimited uncontrollable Sovereignty over them, as not to provide for their own safety, or not to take up Arms against them, for the necessary defense of their Laws, Liberties, Religion, Persons, States, under pain of high Treason, or eternal damnation, in case they should degenerate into Tyrants, and undertake any such wicked destructive design. If not (as none can without madness and impudence aver the contrary, it being against all common sense and reason, that any man or Nation should so absolutely, irresistibly enslave themselves and their Posterities to the very lusts and exorbitancies of Tyrants, and such a thing as no man, no Nation in their right senses, were they at this day to erect a most absolute Monarchy, would condescend to;) then clearly the Apostle here confirming only the Ordinances of men, and giving no Kings nor Rulers any other or greater power then men had formerly granted them (for that h • d been to alter, not approve their human Ordinances) I shall infallibly thence infer; That whole States, and Subjects, may with safe conscience resist the unjust violence of their Kings in the foresaid cases, because they never gave them any authority irresistibly to act them, nor yet devested themselves (much less their posterity whom they could not eternally enslave) of the right, the power of resisting them in such cases; whom they might justly resist before, whiles they were private men, and as to which illegal proceedings they continue private persons still, since they have no legal power given them by the people to authorize any such exorbitances.

Fourthly, The subjection here enjoined, is not passive, but active, witness ver. 15. For so is the will of God, that by WELL DOING (to wit, by your actual cheerful submission to every Ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, &c.) you put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, and not using your liberty, &c. If then this Text be meant of active, not passive obedience; then it can be intended only of lawful Kings, of Magistrates in their just commands, whom we must actually obey; not of Tyrants and Oppressors in their unjust wicked proceedings, whom we are bound in such cases actually to disobey, as our Antagonists grant, and I have largely evidenced elsewhere: Wherefore, it directly commands resistance, not subjection in such cases; since actual disobedience to unjust commands, is actual resisting of them. And that these Texts prescribing resistance tacitly, should apparently prohibit it under pain of Treason, Rebellion, Damnation, is a Paradox to me.

Fifthly, This Text doth no way prove that false conceit of most, who hence conclude: That all Kings are the Supreme Powers, and above their Parliaments, and whole Kingdoms, even by Divine institution: There is no such thing, nor shadow of it in the Text.

For first, This Text calls Kings, not a Divine, but Human Ordinance; If [ I] then Kings be the Supreamest Power, and above their Parliaments, Kingdoms, it is not by any Divine Right, but by Human Ordination only, as the Text resolves.

Secondly, This Text prescribes not any Divine Law to all or any particular States; [ II] nor gives any other Divine or Civil Authority to Kings and Magistrates in any State then what they had before; for if it should give Kings greater Authority and Prerogatives then their people at first allotted them, it should alter and invade the settled Government of all States, contrary to the Apostles scope, which was to leave them as they were, or should be settled by the people's joint consent: It doth not say, That all Kings in all Kingdoms are, or ought to be Supreame; or let them be so henceforth: no such inference appears therein. It speaks not what Kings ought to be in point of Power; but only takes them as they are, (according to that of Rom. 13. 2. The Powers that ARE, &c. to wit, that are, even now every where in being, not which ought to be, or shall be) whence he saith; Submit to the King as supreme: that is; where by the Ordinance of man the King is made supreme; not, where Kings are not the supremest Power; as they were not among the ancient Lacedemonians, Indians, Carthaginians, Goths, Aragonians, and in most other Kingdoms, as I have elsewhere proved: To argue therefore, We must submit to Kings where the people have made them supreme; Ergo, All Kings everywhere are and ought to be supreme Iure divino; (as our Antagonists hence infer) is a gross absurdity.

[ III] Thirdly, This Text doth not say, That the King is the supreme sovereign Power, as most mistake; but supreme Governor, as the next words; or Governors, &c. expound it; and the very Oath of Supremacy, 1. Eliz. Cap. 1. which gives our Kings this Title, Supreame Governor within these his Realms. Now Kings may be properly called Supreame Magistrates or Governors in their Realms, in respect of the actual administration of government and justice, (all Magistrates deriving their Commissions immediately from them, and doing justice, for, and under them:) and yet not be the Sovereign Power, as the Roman Emperors, the Kings of Sparta, Aragon, and others; the German Emperors, the Dukes of Venice in that State, and the Prince of Orange in the Nether-lands, were and are the Supreame Magistrates, Governors; but not the Supreame Sovereign Powers; their whole States, Senates, Parliaments, being the Supreamest Powers, and above them; which being Courts of State, of Justice, and a compound body of many members, not always constantly sitting, may properly be styled, The Supreame Courts and Powers; but not the Supreame Magistrate or Governor: As the Pope holds himself, the Supreame Head and Governor of the Militant Church; and the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury stiles himself, the Primate and Metropolitan of all England; and so other Prelates in their Provinces; yet they are not the Sovereign Ecclesiastical Power, for the King, at least General Councils or National Synods (which are not properly termed Governors, but Powers ) are Paramount them, and may lawfully censure or depose them, as I have elsewhere ) manifested. To argue therefore, that Kings are the highest Sovereign Power, because they are the highest particular Governors and Magistrates in their Realms, as our Antagonists do; is a mere Fallacie, and Inconsequent, since I have proved our own, and most other Kings, not to be the highest Powers, though they be the Supreamest Governors.

[ IIII] Fourthly. This Text speaks not at all of the Roman Emperor, neither is it meant of him, as Doctor Ferne, with others mistake; who is never in Scripture styled a King, being a Title extremely odious to the Romans, and for ever banished their State with an Oath of execration, by an ancient Law, in memory whereof they instituted a special annual Feast on the 23. of February, called, Regifugium; the hatred of which Title continued such, that Tully and Augustine write; Regem Romae posthac, nec Dii nec Homines esse patiantur: And Caesar himself being saluted King by the multitude, perceiving it was very distasteful to the States, answered, CAESAREM SE, NON REGEM ESSE: which Title of Caesar, (not King) the Scripture ever useth to express the Emperor by: witness Matth. 22. 17, 21. Mark 12. 14, 16, 17. Luke 2. 1. chap. 20. 22, 24, 25. chap. 23. 2. John 19. 12, 15. Acts 11. 28. chap 17. 7. chap. 25. 8, 10, 11, 12, 21. chap. 26. 32. chap. 27. 24. chap. 28. 19. Phil. 4. 22. Which Texts do clearly manifest, that no Title was ever used by the Apostles, Evangelists, Jews, to express the Emperor by, but that of Caesar, not this of King. Therefore Peters Text, speaking only of the King, not Caesar, cannot be intended of the Roman Emperor, as ignorant Doctors blindly fancy.

Fifthly, This Epistle of Peter (the Apostle of the Jews) was written only to the [ V] dispersed Jews throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bythinia, 1 Pet. 1. 1. over whom Herod at that time reigned as King, by the Roman Senates and Emperors appointment, who had then conquered the Jews, and made them a tributary Province, as is evident by Matth. 27. 17, 21. Mark 12. 14, 16, 17. Luke 20. 22, 24, 25. chap. 23. 2. Acts 17. 7. chap. 25. 8, 10, 11, 12, 21. chap. 27. 24. chap. 12. 1. to 24. compared together; and by Iosep • us, the Century writers, Baronius, Sigonius, and others. The King then here mentioned to be supreme, was Herod, or King Agrippa, or some other immediate King of the Jews, who was their supreme Governor, not absolutely, but under the Roman Senate and Emperors, and made so by their appointment, whence called in the Text; an Ordinance of man, not God: Now this King of the Jews (as is evident by Paul's Appeal to Caesar from Festus and King Agrippa, as to the Sovereign Tribunal; Acts 25. and 26. by Josephus, P • ilo Iud • us de legatione ad Caium, and the consent of all Historians) was not the absolute Sovereign Power, but subordinate to the Roman Emperor and Senate, who both created, and bad power to control, remove, and censure him for his misdemeanors; yet Peter calls him here Supreame, because the Highest Governor under them, as we style our Kings Supreame Governors under Christ. Therefore having a Superior Governor and Power over him, to which he was accountable and subordinate; Supreame in the Text, cannot be meant, of a King absolutely Supreame, having no Power Superior to him, but God; but only relatively Supreame, in respect of under. Governors, there actually residing: whose Supremacy being forcibly gained only by conquest, not free consent; (and the ancient native Kings of the Jews, being inferior to their whole Senates and Congregations, and to do all by their advice, as Josephus Antiq. Iud. lib. 4. cap. 8. 2. Sam. 18. 3, 4. Jer. 38. 45. 1. Chron. 13. 1. to 6. attest) will no way advantage our Opposites, nor advance the Prerogative of Kings; since it extends only to the King of the Jews that then was, who was not simply Supreme, but a Subject Prince subordinate to the Roman State and Empire, and one appointed by a Conqueror, not freely chosen and assented to by the people. So as all the Argument which can hence be extracted for the absolute Soveraigntie and irresistibility of Kings over their whole Kingdoms and Parliaments, is but this. The King of the Jews was in Peters time the Supreame Magistrate over that Nation, by the Roman Senates and Emperors appointment, to whom yet he was subordinate and accountable; the Romans having conquered the Jews by force, and imposing this government upon them, without their consents. Therefore the Kings of England, and all other Kings are absolute Sovereign Monarchs, Superior to their whole Parliaments and Kingdoms, collectively considered; and may not in point of conscience be forcibly resisted by them, though they endeavor to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties: How little coherence there is in this Argument, the silliest child may at first discern.

From these Scriptures, I descend to Reasons deduced from them, against resistance, which I shall contract into three ArgumentS: The first is this; Kings are the Fathers, Heads, Lord's, Shepherds of the Common-wealth; Ergo, They ought not to be resisted in any their exorbitant proceedings; it being unlawful, unseemly, • or a Son to resist his Father; the Members the Head; the Vassals their Lord; the Flock their Shepherd.

To this I answer1.: First, They are Fathers, Shepherds, Lord's, Heads, only in an improper, allegorical, not genuine sense; therefore nothing can thence be properly inferred: They are and ought to be such in respect of their loving and careful affection towards their Subjects; not in regard of their Sovereign Power over them: Therefore when their Tyrannie makes them not such, in regard of care and affection to their people; their people cease to be such, in regard of filial, natural, and sheep-like submission: When these Shepherds turn Wolves; these Fathers, Step-fathers; the Subjects, as to this, cease to be their Sheep, their Children, in point of Obedience and Submission.

[ 2] Secondly, If we consider the Common-weal and Kingdom collectively; Kings are rather their Kingdoms children then Parents, because created by them, their public servants, ministers, for whose benefit they are employed, and receive wages; not their Sovereign Lord's; their subordinate Heads, to be directed and advised by them, not Tyrannically to over-rule them at their pleasure: Therefore Paramount, and able in such cases to resist them.

[ 3] Thirdly, Parishioners may, no doubt, lawfully resist the false Doctrine • s and open ass • ults of their Ministers, though they be their Spiritual Shepherds: Citizens the violent oppressions of their Mayors, though they be their Politique Heads: Servants the unjust ass • ults of their Masters, though their lawful Lord's; ( who may not misuse their very Villaines, by Law: ) And if Parents will violently assault their natural children, Husbands their Wives, Masters their Servants, to murder them without cause, they may by Law resist, repulse them with open force.

[ 4] Fourthly, A Son who is a Judge, may lawfully resist, imprison, condemn his natural Father; A Servant, his Lord; A Parishioner his Pastor; a Citizen his Major; a mere Gentleman, the greatest Peer or Lord, as experience proves; because they do it in another capacity, as Judges and Ministers of public Justice, to which all are subject. The Parliament then in this sense, as they are the representative Body of the Realm, not private Subjects, (and their Armies by their authority) may, as they are the highest Sovereign Power and Judicature, resist the King and his Forces, though he be their Father, Head, Shepherd, Lord, as they are private men.

Fifthly, This is but the common exploded Argument of the Popish Clergy, To prove themselves superior to Kings, and exempt from all secular Jurisdiction, because they are spiritual Fathers, P •• stors, Heads to Kings; who ought to obey, not judge, and censure them, as Archbish. Stratford, and others argue. But this plea is no ways available to exempt Clergy men from secular Jurisdiction; from actual resistance of parties assaulted, nor yet from imprisonment, censures, and capital executions by Kings and Civil Magistrates, in case of capital Crimes; Therefore by like reason it cannot exempt Kings from the resistance, censures of their Parliaments, Kingdoms, in case of tyrannical invasions. We deride this Argument in Papists as absurd, as in sufficient to prove the exemption of Clergy men: I wonder therefore why it is now urged to as little purpose, against resistance of Tyrants, and oppressing Kings and Magistrates.

The second reason is this, The Invasions and oppressions of evil Kings and Tyrants, are afflictions and punishments inflicted on us by God: Therefore we ought patiently to submit unto them, and not forcibly to resist them.

I answer; First, The invasions of Foreign Enemies are just Judgments, and punishments sent upon men by God; as were the invasions of the Danes, Saxons and Normans in England, heretofore; of the Spaniards since. Ergo, we ought not to resist or fight against them. The present rebellion of the Papists in Ireland is a just punishment of God upon this Kingdom and the Protestant party there; Ergo, Neither we, nor they ought in conscience to resist or take Arms against them. Every sickness that threatens or invades our bodies, is commonly an affliction and punishment sent by God: Ergo, We must not endeavor to prevent or remove it by Physic, but patiently lie under it without seeking remedy. Injuries done us in our persons, estates, names, by wicked men, who assault, wound, rob, defame us, are from God, and punishments for our sins: Ergo, We may not resist them: Yea, Subjects Rebellions, Treasons, and Insurrections, against their Princes many times, are punishments inflicted on them by God, displeased with them, as the Statute of 1 Ed. 6. c. 12. resolves, and the Scripture too: Ergo, Kings ought not to resist or suppress them by force of Arms; If all these Consequences be absurd, and idle, as every man will grant, the objection must be so likewise.

I read, That in the persecution of the Huns, their King Attila being demanded of by a religious Bishop, of a certain City? who he was? when he had answered; I am Attila, the scourge of God: The Bishop reverencing the divine Majesty in him; answered, Thou art welcome ô Minister of God; and ing • minating this saying, Blessed be he that cometh in the Name of the Lord, Opene • the Church door, and let in the persecutor, by whom he obtained the Crown of Martyrdom, not daring to exclude the scourge of the Lord; knowing, that the beloved son is scourged, and that the power of the scourge itself is not from any, but God. Will it hence follow? That all Christians are bound in conscience to do the like, and not to resist the barbarous Turks, if they should invade them▪ no more then this Bishop did the bloody Pagan Huns, because they are God's wrath? I trow not. One Swallow makes no Summer; nor this example, a general president to • inde all men.

The third reason is thi • , Saints forci • le resistance of Tyrants, begets civil wars, great disorders, and many mischiefs in the State: Ergo, It is unlawful, and inconvenient.

I answer, First, That this doctrine of not resisting Tyrants in any case, is far more pernicious, destructive to the Realm then the contrary; because it deprives them of all human means, and possibilities of preservation; and denies them that special remedy which God and nature hath left them for their preservation: Laws, denial of Subsidies, and such like remedies prescribed by Doctor Ferne, being no remoraes or restraints at all to armed Tyrants; Wherefore I must tell thee Doctor, Theologorum utcunque dissertissimorum sententiae, in h •• c controversia non sunt multo faciendae, quia quid sit Lex humana ipsi ignorant, as Vasquius controvers. Illustr. 81. 11. determines.

Secondly, The knowledge of a lawful power in Subjects to resist Tyrants, will be a good means to keep Princes from Tyrannicall courses, for fear of strenuous resistance; which if once taken away, there is no human bridle left to stay the Inundation of Tyranny in Princes or great Officers; and all Weapons, Bulwarks, Walls, Laws, Arms will be merely useless to the Subjects, if resistance be denied them, when there is such cause.

Thirdly, Resistance only in cases of public necessity, though accompanied with civil war; serves always to prevent far greater mischiefs then war itself can produce, it being the only Antidote to prevent public ruin, the readiest means to preserve endangered, to regain, or settle lost Liberties, Laws, Religion, as all ages witness; and to prevent all future Seditions and Oppressions.

Fourthly, Desperate diseases, have always desperate remedies, Malo nod • , malus cuneus: When nothing but a defensive war will preserve us from ruin and vassalage; it is better to embrace it, then hazard the loss of all, without redemption. Ex duobus malis minimum. All Kingdoms, States in cases of necessity, have ever had recourse to this as the lesser evil; and why not ours as well as others.

The last (and strongest Objection as some deem it) is the sayings if some Fathers backed with the examples of the primitive Christians, to which no such satisfactory answer hath hitherto been given, as might be.

The first and grandest Objection against Subjects forcible resistance, and defensive war, is that speech of Saint Ambrose, Lib. 5. Orat. in Auxentium. Coactus repugnare non audeo: dolere potero, potero fler • , potero gemere: adversus arma, milites, Gothos, Lachrymae meae arma sunt: talia enim sunt munimenta sacerdotum: ALITER NEC DEBEO, NEC POSSVM RESISTERE.

This chief Authority, though it makes a great noise in the world, if • olidly scanned, will prove but Brutum fulmen; a mere scar-crow and no more.

For first, Ambrose in this place speaks not at all of Subjects resisting their Princes, or Christians forcible resisting of the persecuting Roman Emperors; but of resisting Valentin • , and the Arms and Soldiers of the Goths, who at that time over ran Italy, and sacked Rome, being mortal Enemies to the Romans, the Roman Emperor • , Saint Ambrose, and Milan where he was Bishop.

This is evident by the express objected words: I can griev • , I can weep, I can mourn, (to wit for the wasting of my native Country Italy, by the Invading Enemies the Goths:) against Arms, Soldiers, GOTHES (mark it) my tears are Weapons, &c. If any sequel can be hence properly deduced, it must be that for which the Anabaptists use it (from whence our Opposites, who tax the Parliaments Forces for Anabaptists, when themselves are here more truly such, and fight with this their weapon.) That it is unlawful for Christians to fight, or make so much as a defensive war against invading Foreign barbarous Enemies, of whom this Father speaks: And then if the Irish Rebels, Danes, Spaniards, French, should now invade England, both against the Kings and Kingdoms Wills, we must make no forcible resistance at all against them with Arms in point of conscience, but only use prayers and tears.

This is the uttermost conclusion which can properly be hence deduced; which our Antagonists will confess to be at least erroneous, Anabaptistical, if not Heretical.

Secondly, You must consider who it was that used this speech; Ambrose, a [ 2] Minister, then Bishop of Milan; who by reason of this his function being an Ambassador of Peace; had his hands bound from fighting with any other weapons, even against invading foreign Enemies, but only with the sword of the spirit, prayers and tears: and that his calling only, was the ground of this his speech; is infallible by the latter clause thereof, which our Opposites cunningly conceal. Prayers are my Arms: For such are the Defensive Armor OF PRIESTS; Otherwise I NEITHER OVGHT NOR CAN RESIST: Why so? Because he was a Minister, a Bishop; and Paul prohibites such to be STRIKERS, Tit. 1. 7. 1 Tim. 3. 3. and because Priests under the Law did but blow the Trumpets, and never went out armed to the wars, Josh. 6. Upon which ground Divers Councils, Decretals, Canonists, expressly prohibit, and exempt Priests and Bishops, from bearing Arms, or going to War, though many of them have turned great Soldiers, and been slain in wars.

Hence Anno 1267, in a Parliament held at Bury, K. H. 3 ^d . and Ottobon the Popes Legat, demanded of all the Bishops and Clergy men, holding Barronies or Lay-fees, that they should go personally armed against the Kings enemies, or find so great service in the Kings expedition, as appertained to so much Lands and Tenants. To which they answered, That THEY OUGHT NOT TO FIGHT WITH THE MATERIALL SWORD; (no not against the Kings Enemies) But with the spiritual; to wit, with humble and devoute tears and prayers, (using these words of Ambrose:) And that for their benefices they were bound to maintain Peace, NOT WARRE.

Hence our King Richard the first, taking the Bishop of Beauvoyes in France, his great Enemy, armed from top to toe, prisoner in the field; commanded him to be strictly kept in prison in his arms, and would by no means suffer him to put them off: for which hard usuage he complained to the Pope, and procured his letter to King Richard to free him from his arms and restraint; in which Letter, the Pope sharply reproves the Bishop for preferring the secular warfare before the spiritual, in that he had taken a Spear instead of a Crosier; an Helmst in lieu of a Miter; an Habergion instead of a white Rochet; a Target in place of a Stole; an Iron-sword, instead of a spiritual sword. After which, the King sent his Arms with this Message to the Pope: See whether this be thy sons Coat or not? Which the Pope beholding, answered: No by Saint Peter, It is neither the apparel of my sons, nor yet of my Brethren, but rather the vesture of the sons of Mars. And upon this ground Our Bishops anciently, when Members of Parliament, departed the house when Cases of Treason or Felony came in question, because they might not by the Canons, have their hands in blood.

This then being Ambrose his direct words and meaning, That he neither ought, nor could use any other Weapons against the invading Goths, and their forces, but prayers and tears; because he was a Minister, not a Bishop, a Lay-man; The genvine Argument that our opposites can thence extract, is but this. Priests must use no other Defensive Arms, but prayers and tears, against invading foreign Enemies. Ergo, The Priests and Ministers in his Majesty's Armies, who bear Offensive Arms, must now in conscience lay them down, and use no other resistance, but prayers and tears against the Parliaments forces: where as their former inference against resistance: Ergo, It is altogether unlawful for the Parliament, or any Lay-Subjects by their command, to defend Religion, Laws, Liberties, against his Majesty's invading forces, who intend by force to subvert them; is but ridiculous nonsense, which never once entered into this Fathers thoughts, and can never be extorted from his words.

Ministers of the Gospel must not use any Arms, but prayers and tears to resist a foreign Enemy: Ergo, None else may lawfully use them to withstand an invading adversary; is a conclusion fitter for Anabaptists then Royalists, who may now with shame enough, forever bid this authority adieu; with which they have hitherto gulled the ignorant World: And henceforth turn it against the Commission of Array, enjoining Bishops, and Clergy men, to array and arm themselves as well as other men, as the Presidents cited in Judge Cook his Argument against Ship-money; in the Parliaments two Declarations against the Commission of Array; and in the Answer published in the Kings name, to the first of them, plentifully evidence.

[ 3] Finally, Hence I infer, That Clergy men may, and must fight against their invading Enemies with prayers, tears, the Weapons which they may lawfully use as proper for their callings. Ergo, Lay-men may, and must resist, and fight against them with corporal Arms, since they are as proper for them in cases of needful defense, as these spiritual Arms are for Priests.

The second Authority is that of Nazienzen. Oratio. 2. in Julianum. Repressus of Julianus Christianorum lachrymis, quas mult as multi profuderunt. HOC VNUM or Solum ( as Grotius translates it ) adversus persecutionem medicamentum habentes: To which I shall add by way of supply this other passage. Nos autem; quibus NVLLA ALIA ARMA, nec muri, nec praesidia, praeter spem in Deum, reliqua erant: Vtpote OMNI HVMANO SVBSIDIO PRORSVS DESTITVTIS ET SPOLIATIS, quem tandem alium aut precum auditorem, aut inimicorum depulsor • m habituri eramus, q • am Deum Jacob, qui adversus superbiam jurat. From whence they conclude, that Christians must use no other weapons but prayers and tears, against Tyrants and oppressors.

To which I answer. First, that it is clear by this, that Christians may use prayers [ 1] and tears against Tyrants and oppressors.

Secondly, that these are the most powerful prevailing Arms both to resist and [ 2] conquer them. This the opposites readily grant. Therefore by their own confession, Christians both may and must resist tyrants by the most powerful & effectual means that are. Tyrants therefore are not the higher Powers, Kings, Rulers, which Paul and Peter in the fore-objected texts, enjoin men under pain of damnation to be subject and obedient to for conscience sake, and no ways to resist; since they may resist them with the powerfullest arms of all others, prayers and tears.

Thirdly, if they may be lawfully resisted with these most prevailing arms notwithstanding [ 3] Paul's & Peters objected inhibitions, then à fortiori they may be with corporal, which are less noxious and prevalent; he that may with most successful means resist, vanquish, and overcome his tyrannizing oppressing Sovereign, may likewise do it by the less noxious Arms. If Christians may repulse and subdue a Tyrant with their Prayers, Tears, then why not with their Swords? Doth God or the Scripture make any such distinction, that we may and must resist them under pain of damnation, with these kind of weapons; and shall it be no less then Treason, Rebellion, Damnation to resist them with the other? what difference is there in point of Allegiance, Loyalty, Treason, Conscience, to resist an oppressing tyrannizing Prince and his Forces with a Prayer, or with a Sword? with a Teare, or with a Spear? Are they not all one in substance? By the Statutes of 26 H. 8. c. 13. 1 E. 6. c. 14. 5 E. 6. c. 11. 1 Eliz. c. 6. 13 Eliz. c. 1. words against the King delivered even in Preaching, are made and declared to be high Treaeson, as well as bearing Arms, and striking blows; yea, the Statute of 1 & 2 Ph. & Ma. 6. 9. makes certain prayers against this persecuting Queen, high Treason; and by the Statute of 25 E. 3. c. 2. it is high Treason for any man to COMPASSE OR IMAGIN the death of the King, Queen, Prince, as well as to slay or leavy war against them. If then we may, by the Objectors confession, the practices and examples of the Primitive Christians, against Julian and others, fight with our Tongues, Prayers, Tears, Imaginations against our Sovereigns, who turn Tyrants and Persecutors; and thereby suppress, conquer, confound them, of which none make scruple, though our Statutes make it no less then high Treason in some cases; then questionless they may by the self same reason and ground, resist them with open force, notwithstanding any inhibition in Scripture. We may not, must not resist any lawful King or Magistrate in the just execution of his office, so mush as with a repugnant will, thought, prayer, tear: we may, yea must resist an oppressing, persecuting Tyrant with all these; therefore with any other Arms. means Hezekiah, David, Moses, Abijah, Asa, resisted their invading enemies, and conquered them with their prayers; but yet they provided to repulse and vanquish them with other external Arms. The Christians resistance and vanquishing their Emperor Julian with the one, is an infallible argument, they might do it with the other too, there being no such distinction in the objected Scriptures, that we may fight against and resist them with our prayers, tears, not arms.

Fourthly, this Father saith not, that it was unlawful for the Christians to use any [ 4] other weapons but tears against Julian, the only thing in question. No such • yllable in the Oration, but only, that they had no other Arms to resist and conquer him with, being utterly destitute and spoiled of all other human help. Therefore their want of other Arms and help, not the unlawfulness of using them, had they had them, was the only ground they used prayers and tears, not a • me • . To argue then, those who are destitute of all Arms, but prayers and tears, must use them only: Ergo those who have other Arms besides prayers and tears, may not lawfully use them to resist a Tyrant, is but Scholastical Nonsence; yet this is the very uttermost this authority yields our opposites. In one word, this Father informs us, that this Apostate Emperor Julian, would not make open war at first upon the Christians, because this would altogether cross the end he aimed at: (mark the reason) Nos enim, si vis inferatur, acriores obstinatioresque futures, ac tyrannidi obnixum pietatis TUENDAE STUDIUM OBJECTUROS cogitavit. Solent enim fortes & generosi animi, ei QUI VIM AFFERRE PARAT CONTUMACITER OBSISTERE, non secus ac flamma, quae a vento excitatur, quo vehementius perflatur, eo vehementius accenditur. Which argues, that the Christians would have forcibly resisted him, had he at first with force invaded them; therefore he weakened, subdued, disarmed them first by policy; and then fell topersecute them with force, when they had no means of resistance left.

The third authority is that of Bernard, Epist. 221. to King Lewis of France, Quicquid vobis de Regno vestro, de animâ & coronâ vestrâ facere placeat, NOS ECCLESIAE FILII, matris injurias, contemptum, & conculcationem omnino dissimulare non possumus. Profecto STABIMUS ET PUGNABIMUS USQUE AD MORTEM ( si ita oportuerit) pro matre nostrâ ARMIS QUIBUS LICET, non scutis & gladiis, SED PRECIBUS ET FLETIBUS AD DEUM. Therefore it is unlawful for Christians to resist with force of Arms.

I answer first, that Bernard was both a Monk and Clergy-man, prohibited by Scripture and • undry Canons to fight with military Arms against any person or enemy whatsoever; and he utters these words of himself, as he was a Clergy-man, servant, and son of the Church; in the selfsame sense as Saint Ambrose did before. It was then only his Calling, not the cause which prohibited him forcibly to resist King Lewis.

[ 2] Secondly I answer, that this authority is so far from prohibiting resistance of oppressing Princes, endeavoring with force of Arms to subvert Liberties, Laws, Religion; that it is an unanswerable proof for it, even in our present case: King Lewis to whom Bernard writes, had then raised a civil war in his Realm against Theobald and others who desired peace; which the King rejecting, Bernard doth thus reprehend him in the premisses. Verum vos nec verba pacis recipitis; nec pactae vestra tenetis, nec sanis consiliis acquiescitis. Sed nescio quo Dei judicio, omnia vobis ita vertitis in perversum, ut probra honorem, honorem probra ducatis; tuta timeatis, timenda contemnatis; & quod olim sancto & glorioso Regi David, Joab, legitur exprobrasse; diligitis eos qui vos oderunt, & odio habetis qui vos diligere volunt. N • que enim qui vos instigant priorem iterare maliciam adversus non merentem, quaerunt in hoc honorem vestrum, sed suum commodum, imo nec suum commodum, SED DIABOLI VOLUNTATEM; ut Regis (quod absit) potentiam concepti fur • ris h • beant effectricem; quem suis • e posse adimple • e viribus non confidunt; INIMICI CORONAE VESTRAE, REGNI MANIFESTISSIMI PERTURBATORES. (Our present case, in regard of the Kings evil sedu • ing Counselors.) Then immediately follows the objected clause, At quicquid vobis, &c. After which he gives him this sharp reproof. Non tacebo quod cum excommunicatis iterare faedus & societatem nunc satagis, quod in n • cem hominum, combustionem domorum, destructionem Ecclesiarum, dispersionem pa •• perum raptoribus, predonibus (sicut dicitur, adhaeretis; juxta illud Prophetae si videbas furem cur • as cum eo, &c. quasi non satis per vo • mala facere valeatis. Dico vobis, non erit diu inultum, si haec ita facere pergitis. &c. Here this holy man prohibited by his orders to fight against this King, his Sovereign with his Sword; fights strongly against and resists his vio • ence with his Pen. And although he may not use a Sword and Buckler in respect of his calling to defend his mother the Church against him: yet he is so far from yielding obedience to and not resisting him, according to Paul's and Peters pretended injunctions, that he expressly tells him to his face, That HE WOULD STAND AND FIGHT AGAINST HIM EVEN UNTO DEATH ( • f there were need) with such weapons as he (being a Monk and Minister) might use, to wit, with Prayers and tears, though not with Sword and Buckler; which were more prevalent with God against him then any other Arms. So that he resists him in the very highest strain that may be; and clearly admits, that Laymen who might lawfully use Swords and Bucklers, might with them justly defend the Church in standing and fighting for it against him even to death, as well as he might do it with prayers and tears, his proper Arms: Which answers that objection out of his 170. Epistle, written to the same King; and his 183 Epistle to Co • rade King of Roman; where he subjects these Kings to the Pope, who • he adviseth them to obey; and reprehends them for their misd •• eanours, notwithstanding that text of Rom. 13 which he there recites.

The fourth authority, is the example of the primitive Christians, who submitted themselves willingly to their persecuting Emperors; without resistance in word or deed. For proof whereof, several passages are recited out of Fathers, which I shall co • j • yne: the first is out of Tertullian his Apologeticus. Quoties exim in Christianos desaev • tis, partim • nimis propriis, partim l • g • bus obseque • tes? Quoties etiam praeteritis à vobis SUO JURE NOS INIMICUM VULGUS invadit lapidibus & incendiis? Ipsis Bacchanalium furiis, nec mortuis parcunt Christianis, qu •• illos de requie sepultu • ae, de asylo quodam mortis, jam alios, jam nec totos avellant, dissecent, distrahant? quid tamen de tam conspiratis unquam denotatis, de tam animatis ad mortem usque pro injuria repensatis? quamvis vel unae nox pauculis f • culis largitatem • ltionis posset operari, si malum malo dispu • gi, penes nos liceret. Sed absit ut aut igni humano vindicetur divina secta; aut doleat pati, in quo probatu • . Si • e im in hosts exortos non tantum vindices occultos agere vellemus, de sset nobis vis numerorum & copiarum? Plures nimirum Mauri & Marcomanni, ipsique Parthi, vel quantaecunque, unius tamen loci & suorum finium gentes, quàm totiùs orbis? Externi sumus & vestra omnia implevimus, urbes, insulas, castella, municipia, conciliabula, castra ipsa, tribus, decurias, palatium, senatum, forum, sola vobis relinquimus templa. Cui Bello non idonei, non prompti fuissemus, etiam impares copiis, QUI TAM LIBENTER TRUCIDAMUR? Si non apud istam disciplinam MAGIS OCCIDI LICERET, QUAM OCCIDERE. Potuimus & inerm • s, NEC REBELIES, sed tantummodo discordes solius divortii invidia adversus vos dimic • sse. Si enim tanta vis hominum, in aliquem orbis remoti sinum abrupissemus â vobis, suffudisset utique damnationem vestram tot qualiumcunque amissio civium, imo etiam & ipsa institution punisset: proculdubio expavissetis ad solitudinem vestram, ad silentium rerum, & stuporem quendam quasi mortui urbes quaesissetis quibus imperaretis. Plures hosts, quàm cives vobis remanisissent, nunc enim pauciores hosts habetis prae multitudine Christianorum, pene omnium civium. Which S. Cyprian (Tertullian's imitator) thus seconds, Laedere Dei & Christi servos persecutionibus tuis design, quos laesos ultio divina defendit. Inde est enim quod nemo nostrum quando apprehenditur, reluctatur, nec se adversus injustam violentiam vestram quamvis nimius & copiosus noster sit populus, ulciscitur. Patientes facit de secutura ultione securitas. Innocentes nocentibus ce • unt. • Insontes poenis & cruciatibus acquiescunt, certi & fidentes, quod in ultum non remaneat, quodcunque perpetimur, quantoque major fuerit persecutionis injuria, tanto & justior fiat & gravior pro persecutione vindicta. Which Lactantius thus trebles. Confidimus enim Majestati ejus qui tam contemptum sui possit vlcisci, quam servorum suorum labores & injurias. Et ideo cum tam nefanda perpetimur, ne verbo quidem reluctamur, sed Deo remittimuus ulti •• nes. Saint Augustine relates the same in these words, Neque tunc Civitas Christi quamvis ad huc peregrinaretur in terra, & haberet tam magnorum agmina populorum, adversus impios persecutores, pro temporali salute pugnavit, sed potius ut obtineret aeternam, non repugnavit: ligabantur, includebantur, caedebantur, torquebantur, urebantur, lani • bantur, cruciabantur, & multiplicabantur. Non erat iis pro salute pugnare, nisi salutem pro salute contemnere. The sum of all these Fathers sayings (which I have largely cited, because I would conceal nothing that might be materially objected) is this: That the Christians in the primitive Church, though they were many in number, and sufficiently able to defend themselves against their persecutors by force of Arms, did yet refuse to do it, yielding themselves up to any tortures, punishments, deaths, without the least resistance in word or deed; Ergo, the Parliament and Kingdom ought now to make no resistance at all against the Kings popish Army and Cavaliers, but to expose themselves to their cruelties and rapines, without the least resistance in word or deed.

Because this objection sticks most with many Scholars, Statists, and tender consciences, I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to it, without any shifting evasions, or questioning the truth of Tertullian's, and Cyprians assertions, concerning the multitude and strength of the Christians, and their ability to resist, which some have taken great pains to re • ute.

[ 1] First, then I say, that neither of all these Fathers say, That the primitive Christians held it unlawful, much less damnable, in point of conscience for them to resist their persecuting enemies, no such syllable in any of them. And Tertullian's, Si non apud istam disciplinam MAGIS OCCIDI LICET QUAM OCCIDERE, by way of necessary defense, implies no such thing, but rather proves the contrary, that resistance is lawful, because it is lawful to be slain as a martyr; therefore in this case to slay. So as there is nothing in these authorities in point of conscience to condemn the Parliaments present resistance, and defensive war, as unlawful.

[ 2] Secondly, they all seem to grant, that the Christians deemed resistance even by force of Arms to be lawful for them, though they used it not; no Text of Scripture prohibiting, but allowing it, and these Fathers producing no one text which truly condemns it; this being the very sum of their words. That though the Christians were exceeding many in number, of strength and power abundantly sufficient to defend themselves in a warlike manner against their persecutors, and had full liberty and no restraint upon them in point of Conscience either to withstand their persecutors with Arms, or to withdraw themselves from under the jurisdiction of their persecutors into remote parts, to the great weakening and loss of the State: yet such was their patience, innocence, and desire of Martyrdom, that they resisted not their Adversaries with force, nor retired, nor fled away from under their obedience, but cheerfully without the least resistance by word, deed, or thought, yielded up their Bodies, Liberties, Lives, to the cruelties of their Enemies, to obtain that Crown of Martyrdom which they desired, and to offer up themselves a voluntary freewill oblation to the Lord, who would certainly avenge all their wrongs. This is the sum of all these Authorities, which evidence resistance lawful in it self, and to these Christians too in their own judgments and resolutions, though the desire of Martyrdom made them freely to forbear it. These Examples and Authorities therefore abundantly corroborate, and no ways impeach our cause.

Thirdly, their examples of not resisting Persecutors, being rather voluntary, then [ 3] enjoined, out of a longing desire to be Martyrs, and an assurance of divine vengeance to be executed on their Persecutors, is no restraint nor ground at all for other Christians, now not to use any forcible resistance, it being a gross inconsequent to argue: The Primitive Christians voluntarily refused to defend themselves with force of Arms against their Persecutors, though they were not bound in point of Conscience from such resistance, and had both liberty and power to resist. Ergo, Christians in point of Conscience ought not to make any forcible resistance against oppressing Lord's and Persecutors now: For then this their voluntary choice and election should deprive all following Christians of that ability of defense which both themselves then had, and since enjoy by God's and Natures Law. Yet this is all the argument which can be ingeniously framed from these Authorities and Examples; the absurdity whereof I shall thus further illustrate from like Precedents: We know, first, That the primitive Christians, out of a desire of martyrdom, not only refused to resist, but to flee away from their Persecutors, when they might safely do it; some of them holding it unlawful and dishonorable to flee in such a case; by name Tertullian, in his book De fuga in persecutione. Will our Opposites from hence infer: Ergo, it is unlawful for Christians not only to resist, but even to flee from their Persecutors, or his Majesty's murdering, plundering Forces? Or for them selves to flee, not only from the Parliaments Forces, but Justice too, as many of them have done, yea, made escapes against Law to flee therefrom. If the Christians not fleeing, bind neither them, nor us, not to flee now, why should their not resisting only do it? Secondly, The Primitive Christians ran to the stake of martyrdom, when they were neither accused, cited, persecuted by any, freely confessing themselves Christians, and rather desiring presently to die Martyrs, then live Christians, and reputing it worse then death not to be admitted to, or delayed the honor of being Martyrs, of which we have infinite Pre • idents in Ecclesiastical Histories commonly known and over-tedious to recite. I shall only instance in Julian the Apostates Christian Soldiers: who being over-reached by him under color of a largesse, to throw some Frankincense into a fire secretly kindled by the Emperor in honor of an Idol, they dreaming of no such thing, and doing it only as a mere complemental Ceremony; as soon as they heard how the Emperor had over-reached them, and given out speeches that they had sacrificed to his Idol, presently rising from the feast prepared for them, in a • ury, infl • med with zeal and wrath, ran through the Market place, and cried out openly, We are Christians, We are Christians in mind; let all men hear it, and above all, God, to whom we both live and will also die. O Christ our Savior, we have not broken our faith plighted to thee: If our hand hath any way offended, verily our mind followed it not at all; we are circumvented by the Emperors fraud with whose gold we are wounded. We have put off impiety, we are purged by blood. After which, posting speedily to the Emperor, and casting away their gold, with a generous and strenuous mind they exclaimed against him in this manner. O Emperor, we have not received gifts, but are damned with death. We are not called for our honor, but branded with ignominy. Give this benefit to thy Soldiers, kill and behead us unto Christ, to whose Empire only we are subject. Recompence fire for fire; for those ashes reduce us into ashes. Cut off the hands which we have wickedly stretched out; the feet wherewith we have perniciously run together. Give gold to others, who will not afterwards repent they have received it; Christ is enough, and more then sufficient unto us, whom we account instead of all. The Emperor enraged with this speech, refused to slay them openly, lest they should be made Martyrs, who as much as in them lay were Martyrs; but only banished them, revenging this their contempt with that punishment. Will it then follow from these memorable examples, That all true Christians now in England and Ireland must come thus and offer themselves voluntarily to the Popish Rebels and Forces (now in Arms to extirpate the Protestant Religion in both Kingdoms) or that the Members of both Houses must go speedily to Oxford to the King and h • s evil Counselors, and there let them kill, hang, burn, quarter, slay, execute, torture them, subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, Parliaments, without the least resistance? Or will our Opposites hence conclude (as they may with better Judgment and Conscience d • e) Ergo, all such persons voted Traitors and Delinquents in any kind by both Houses of Parliament, ought now in point of Conscience (to avoid the effusion of blood and ruin of the Realm, through the civil wars they have occasioned) to lay down their Arms, and voluntarily resign up themselves to the impartial Justice of the Parliament, without any the least resistance for the future: If no such Doctrinal, or Practical conclusions may be drawn from these their Precedents of voluntary seeking and rendering themselves up to the Martyrdom of their Opposites; then the unlawfulness of resisting cannot be inferred from this their non-resisting. Thirdly, how many cowardly Soldiers in all ages, and in this too, have volunta • ily yielded up Forts, Castles, Ships, Arms, Persons, to their invading approaching enemies without fight or resistance? How many persons have resigned up their Purses to high-way thieves, their Lands to disseisors, their Houses, Goods to rioters, their Ships, Estates, Persons, to Turkish and other Pirates, without any resist • nce, when they might have lawfully and easily preserved them by resisting? Will it therefore follow, that all others must do so? that we must not fight against invading Enemies, Thieves, Pirates Riotors, beca • se many good Christians out of fear or cowardice, or for other reasons have not done it in all ages? I •• ow not. Will the Jews refusi • g t • ree or four several times to defend themselves against their insulting enemies on their Sabbath; or the Goths not resisting their invading foes on the Lord's Day; or will the Alexandrian Jews example and sp • ech to Flaccus, Inermes sumus ut vides, & tamen sunt qui nos tanquam hosts public • s hic crimina • tur. Etiam • as quas ad nostri tutelam partes d • dit natura, retro vertimus ubi nihil habent quod agant, corpora praeb • mus nuda & patentia ad impetum eorum qui nos volunt occid re. Or that example of the Christian Theban Legion, slain without the least resistance for their Religion: who as an ancient Martyriologer saith, Caed bantur passim g • adi is non reclamantes, sed & d • positis armis cervices persecutoribus vel intectum corpus offerentes: warrant this deduction. Ergo, no Christians now must resist their invading enemies on the Sabbath day, but must offer their naked body • s heads, throats, unto their swords and violence? If not, then these examples and autho • ities will no ways prejudice our present resistance.

Fourthly, the Christians not only refused to resist their oppressing Emperors [ 4] and Magistrates, who proceeded judicially by a kind of Law against them, but even the vulgar people, who assaulted, stoned, slew them in the streets against Law, as Tertullian's words, Quoties enim praeterit is à vobis SUO JURE NOS INIMICUM VULGUS invadit lapidibus & incendiis, &c. manifest without all contradiction; and indeed this passage so much insisted on, relates principally, if not only to such assaults of the rude notorious vulgar, which every man will grant the Christians might lawfully with good conscience forcibly resist, because they were no Magistrates nor lawful higher powers within Rom. 13. 1. 2. or 1 Pet. 2. 13, 14. Either then our Antagonist must grant, that it is unlawful in point of Conscience forcibly to resist the unlawful assaults and violence of the vulgar or private persons who are no Magistrates: and that it is unlawful now for any Christians to resist Thieves, Pirates, or bear defensive Arms, as the Anabaptists (from whose quiver our Antagonists have borrowed this and all other shafts against the present defensive war) and to make the primitive Christians all Anabaptists in this particular: Or else inevitably grant resistance lawful, notwithanding their examples and these passages of not resisting. The rather, because Tertullian in the next preceding words, puts no difference at all between the Emperor and meanest Subjects in this case; Idem sumus (saith he) Imperatoribus, qui & vicinis nostris male enim velle, male facere, male dicere, male cogitare de quoquam ex aequo vetamur. Quodcunq • e non licet in Imperatorem id n • c in quenquam.

Fifthly, admit the Christians then deemed all forcible resistan • e of persecutors [ 5] simply unlawful in point of Conscience, as being a thing quite contrary to Christian profession and Religion; then as it necessarily proves on the one side, That even Christian Kings, Princes, Magistrates, must in no wise forcibly resist the tumultuous Rebellions, Insurrections, and persecutions of their Subjects, because they are Christians as well as Rulers, and in this regard equally obliged with them not to resist with Arms; much less then their Parliaments Forces lawfully raised for the public defense. So on the contrary part it follows not, that therefore resistance is either unlawful in it self, or that the Parliaments present resistance is so. For first, such resistance being nowhere prohibited (as I have formerly proved) their bare opinion, that it was unlawful to them, cannot make it so to them, or us in point of conscience, since God hath not made or declared it so. Secondly, the primitive Christians held many things unlawful in point of Conscience, which we now hold not so. Tertullian and others inform us, That the Christians in his time thought it a heinous sin (N • fas) to pray kneeling on the Lord's day, or between Easter and Whitsuntide (and so by consequence to kneel at the Sacrament) praying always standing on those days in memory of Christ's resurrection. Which custom was ratified also by many Councils: Yet then it was lawful no doubt in it self for them to pray kneeling, and we all use the contrary custom now. The Christians then held it unlawful, to eat blood in puddings, or any other meats, as Tertullian, Minucius Felix testify, and many Councils expressly prohibited it since, as unlawful: Yet all Churches at this day deem it lawful, and practice the contrary. The Christians in Tertullian's days, and he himself in a special Book, De fuga in persecutione, held it unlawful to flee in times of persecution, and therefore they voluntarily offered themselves to martyrdom without flight or resistance. Yet we all now hold flying lawful, and all sorts practice it as lawful; yea many more then they ought to do. I might give sundry other instances of like nature: The Christians opinion therefore of the unlawfulness of any armed resistance of Persecutors public or private (held they any such) though seconded with their practice, is no good argument of its unlawfulness, without better evidence, either then, or at this present. Thirdly, the case of the Primitive Christians and ours now is far different; The Emperors, Magistrates, and whole States under which they then lived were all Pagan Idolaters, their Religion quite contrary to the Laws and false Religions settled in those States: There were many Laws and Edicts then in force against Christian Religion, unrepealed: most Professors of Religion were of the lowest rank, not many wise, Noble, mighty men, scarce any great Officer, Magistrate, or Senator, was of that profession, but all fierce enemies against it: For Christians, being but private men, and no apparent body of a State, to make any public forcible resistance in defense of Religion against Emperors, Senators, Magistrates, Laws, and the whole State wherein they lived, had neither been prevalent nor expedient; a great hindrance and prejudice to Religion, and as some hold, unlawful. But our present case is far otherwise; our King, Parliament, State, Magistrates, People, are all Christians in external profession, our Protestant Religion established, Popery excluded, banished by sundry public Laws; the Houses of Parliament, and others now resisting, are the whole body of the Realm in representation, and have authority, even by Law, to defend themselves and Religion against invading Popish Forces: In which regards our present resistance is, and may clearly be affirmed lawful, though the primitive Christians, in respect of the former circumstances, might not be so. Secondly, their resistance, (especially of the Magistrates not vulgar rabble) if made, had been only, singly for defense of their Religion then practiced but in corners, publicly condemned, nowhere tolerated: Our present war is not only for defense of our Religion established by Law, and to keep out Popery, but for the preservation of Laws, Liberties, the very essence of Parliaments, the safety of the Realm, and that by authority of Parliament, the representative body of the Realm. The Parliaments defensive war, therefore, upon these political grounds is just and lawful, though the Primitive Christians, perchance in defense of Religion only, as its case then stood, would not have been so: even as the Roman Senators and States resisting of Nero, or any other Tyrannicall Emperors violations of the Laws, Liberties, Lives, Estates of the Senate, people, were then reputed just and lawful, though the Christians defense of Religion would not have been so esteemed in those times. And thus I hope I have sati • factorily answered this objection without shifts or evasions, and rectified these mistaken Fathers meanings, with which our Opposites have seduced the illiterate over-credulous vulgar.

I have now (through God's assistance) quite run through all Objections of moment from Scripture, Reason, Fathers, against the lawfulness of the Parliaments present defensive war, and discovered divers gross errors, yea, Impostures in our Opposites writings, wherewith they have perverted many men's Consciences, and cheated the ignorant seduced world: I shall therefore here adjure them in the presence of Almighty God, as they will answer the contrary before his Tribunal at the Day of Judgment, seriously to consider these my answers, and publicly to retract those their Errors, false gross mis-interpretations, perve • sions of Scriptures, Authors, which I have here discovered. And since they pretend nothing but the satisfying and keeping of a good Conscience in & by others, concerned in this Controversy; to show a sincere ingenuous Conscience therein themselves where they have been mistaken, since the contestation pretended, is not for Victory, Time-serving, or Self-seeking; but for Truth, God's glory, and the public weal: and if I have over-shot myself in anything, I shall promise them a thankful acknowledgement, and ready paline dy upon their information and conviction of any apparent oversights, I may casually fall into.

Now because they shall not deem me singular in my opinion concerning the lawfulness of subjects defensive Arms against their Sovereigns, bent to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, the Republic, or deem it is a late upstart Novelty, I shall conclude this discourse with such personal, natural and public authorities, as they shall not be able to balance with counter-resolutions; in which I shall be as brief as I may be.

For personal Authorities, I shall not be ambitious to remember many, especially Papists, whose common, constant received opinion, and practice hath always been and yet is, That Subjects upon the Popes command alone, and absolution of them from their Sovereigns allegiance, may and ought to take up even offensive Arms against their own natural Princes excommunicated, interdicted, deposed, or only declared contumacious, Schism • ticall or Heretical by the Pope, without, yea, against their Kingdoms, Parliaments privities or consents, much more then with their approbation. What Papists have determined and practiced in this very point you may read at large in Gratiau himself Causa. 15. Quaest. 6. and Causa. 23. in the very Oath of Supremacy, and Statut, of 3. Iacobi, ch. 4. which prescribes it, in Bishop Jewels view of a seditious Bull, in Doctor John W • ite his Defense of the way, Chap. 6. & 10. in Abbas Vsper ge • sis, Sabellicus, Valateranus, Grimston and others, in the Lives of the Roman and German Emperors; in Aventine his Annalium Boyorum, the General and Particular Histories of France, Sparn, Germany, Italy, Sicily, Hungary, England; in Bishp Bilsons third part of the True Difference between Christian Subjection and unchristian Rebellion. In su • dry Sermons on the fifth of November, to which I shall refer you: In Pope Paschal his letter to Robert Earl of Flanders, about the year of our Lord, 1107. exorting him to war against those of Liege, Henry the Emperor and his Assistants, wheresoever he should find them, excommunicated and deposed as an Heretike and enemy to the Church; telling him, that he could not offer a more grateful sacrifice to God, then to ware against them; concluding, Hoc tibi & Militibus tuis in peccatorum remissionem, & Apostolicae sedis familiaritatem praecipimus, ut his laboribus, & triumphis ad Coelestem Jerusalem, Domino praestante, pervenias: Which Let er was excellently answered by those of Liege. And in the Council of Towres in France, under Louis the twelfth, Anno 1510. it was unanimously resolved by the Church of France, That if the Pope did make war upon temporal Princes, in lands which they held not of the patrimony of the Church, they might lawfully by force of Arms resist and defend both themselves and others; & not only repulse this injury, but likewise invade the lands of the Church, possessed by the Pope their notorious enemy, not perpetually to retain, but to hinder the Pope from becoming more strong and potent by them, to offend both them and theirs. And that it was lawful for such Princes, for such notorious hatred and unjust invasion to withdraw themselves from the Popes obedience, and with armed force to resist all censures denounced by the Pope against them, their subjects and Confederates, and that such sentences ought not to be obeyed, but are mear nullities in law, which oblige no man. Yet I must inform you further in brief, that John Major a Popish Schoolman in Lib. 4. Sentent. (as Grotius writes) affirms. That the people cannot deprive themselves of the power, not only of resisting, but deposing Kings in cases which directly tend to their destruction; and that John Barclay, a late Scottish Priest, though a strenuous defendor of Princes Prerogatives, expressly avers, That if a King will alienate and subject his Kingdom to another, without his subjects • onsents, or be carried with atr • e hostile mind, to the dest • uction of all his people, that his Kingdom is thereby actually lost and forfeited, so as the people may not only absolutely resist, and disobey, but depose him, and elect another King: to which Hugo Gortius a Protestant, freely subscribes; and John Bodin •• • oweth of Subjects resistance, yea, deposing kings, in some Kingdoms absolutely, and in some cases generally in all; De Repub. l. 1. c. 10. l. 1. c. 5 & l. 5. c. 5. & 6. For Protestant personal authorities: we have Huldericus Zwingli, Explanatio Articuli, 40, 41, 42, 43. Tom. 1. fol. 82. to 86. who allows not only Subjects actual resistance, but deprivation of Kings, Where Princes set themselves to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties; and that by the common consent of the States in Parliament, from whom Kings originally receive their Royal power and authority. Martin Luther, Bugenhagius, Iustus Jonah, Ambsdorfius, Sp • lotinus, Melancthon, Cruciger, and other Divines, Lawyers, Statesmen, Anno 1531. who published a writing in justification of defensive Arms by subjects in certains cases; Sleidan. Hist. lib. 8. 18, 22. David Chrytraeus, Chron. Saxoniae, l. 13. p. 376. Richardus Dinothus de Bello Civili Gallico Religions causa suscepto, p. 231. 232. 225 227, &c. A book entitled, De Iure Belli Belgici, Hagae, 1599. purposely justifying the lawfulness of the Low-countries defensive war. Immanuel Meteranus Historia Belgica, Praefat. & lib. 1. to 17. David Par • us, Com. in Rom. 13. Dub. 8. And. Quaest. Theolog. 61. Edward Grimston his General History of the Netherlands, l. 5. to 17. passim. Hugo Grotius de Iure Belli & Pacis, lib. 1. cap. 4. with sundry other foreign Protestant writers, both in Germany, France, Bohemia, the Netherlands and elsewhere; John • Knokes his Appellation, p. 28. to 31. George Bucanon De Iure Regni apud Scotos, with many Scottish Pamphlets justifying their late wars: John. Ponet once B. of Winchester, his Book entitled, Politick Govern. p. 16. to 51. Alber. Gentilis de Iur, Belli, l. 1. c. 25. l. 3. c. 9. 22. M. Goodmans Book in Q. Ma. days, entitled, How superior Magistrates ought to be obeyed, c. 9. 13. 14. 16. D. A. Willet his Sixfold Commentary on Romans 13. Quaestion. 16. & Controversy, 3. p. 588 589, 590, 608, &c. Peter Mariyr Com. In Rom. 13 p. 1026. with sundry late writers, common in every man's hands, justifying the • a • ulnesse of the present defensive War, whose Names I spare. And lest any should think that none but Puritans have maintained this opinion, K. James himself in his Answer to Card. Perron, justifieth the French Protestant taking up Defensive Arms in France. And Bish. Bilson (a fierce Antipuritane) not only defends the Lawfulnesse of the Protestants defensive Arms against their Sovereigns in Germany, Flaunders, Scotland, France; but likewise dogmatically determines in these words;

But that which sways most with me, is not the opinions of private men, biased ofttimes with private sinister ends which corrupt their judgments, (as I dare say most of our Opposites in this controversy have writ to flatter Princes, to gain or retain promotions, &c.) But the general universal opinion and practice of all Kingdoms, Nations in the world from time to time. Never was there any State or Kingdom under heaven from the beginning of the world till now, that held or resolved it to be unlawful in point of Law or Conscience, to resist with force of Arms the Tyranny of their Emperors, Kings, Princes, especially when they openly made war, or exercised violence against them, to subvert their Religion, Laws, Liberties, State, Government. If ever there were any Kingdom, State, People of this opinion, or which forbore to take up Arms against their Tyrannous Princes in such cases, even for conscience sake, I desire our An • agonists to name them; for though I have diligently searched, inquired after such, I could never yet find or hear of them in the world; but on the contrary, I find all Nations, States, Kingdoms whatsoever, whether Pagan or Christian, Protestant or Popish, ancient or modern, unanimously concurring both in judgment and constant practice, that forcible resistance in such cases is both just, lawful, necessary, yea, a duty to be undertaken by the general consent of the whole Kingdom, State, Nation, though with the effusion of much blood, and hazard of many men's lives. This was the constant practice of the Romans, Grecians, Goths, Moors, Indians, Egyptians, Vandals, Spaniards, French, Britain's, Saxons, Italians, English, Scots, Bohemians, Polonians, Hungarians, Danes, Swedes, Jews, Flemmins, and other Nations in former and late ages, against their Tyrannicall oppressing Emperors, Kings, Princes, together with the late defensive Wars of the protestants in Germany, Bohemia, France, Sweden, the • ow-countries, Scotland, and elsewhere, against their Princes, (approved by Queen Elizabeth, king James, and our present king Charles. who assisted the French, Bohemians, Dutch, and German Protestant Princes in those Wars, with the unanimous consent of their Parliaments, Clergy, people) abundantly evidence beyond all contradiction; which I have more particularly manifested at large in my Appendix, and therefore shall not enlarge myself further in it here: only I shall acquaint you with the • e five Particulars.

First, that in the Germans Defensive Wars for Religion, in Luther's days, the Duke of Saxony, the Lantzgrave of Hesse, the Magistrates of Magd • burge, together with other Protestant Princes, States, Lawyers, Cities, Counselors and Ministers, after serious consultation, concluded and resolved, That the Laws of the Empire permitted resistance of the Emperor to the Princes and Subjects in some cases, that defense of Religion and Liberties then invaded, was one of these cases; that the times were then so dangerous, that THE VERY FORCE OF CONSCIENCE AND NECESSITY DID LEAD THEM TO ARMS, and to make a League to defend themselves, THOVGH CAESAR OR ANY IN HIS NAME WOVLD MAKE WAR AGAINST THEM; That if the Emperor had kept his bonds and Covenants▪ they would have done their duties; but because he began first to make the breach, the fault is his: For since he attempteth to root out Religion, and subvert our Liberty, he giveth us cause enough TO RESIST HIM WITH GOOD CONSCIENE; The matter standing as it doth, we may resist him, as may be shown by Sacred and profane Stories. Unjust violence is not God's Ordinance, neither are we bound to him by any other reason, then if he keep the conditions on which he was created Emperor. BY THE LAWS THE MSELVES IT IS PROVIDED, that the inferior Magistrate shall not infringe the right of the Superior: and so likewise if the superior Magistrate exceed the limits of his power, and command that which is wicked, not only we need not obey him, BVT. IF HE OFFER FORCE WE MAY RESIST HIM. So they in point of Law and Conscience then publicly resolved.

Secondly, that the French Protestants, and others, in the reign of King Fran • is the second, Anno 1359. being much oppressed by the Guisian faction, who had got the K. into their power, and wholly swayed him (as his Maj. ill Counselors sway him now) thereupon assembling together to consult of some just defense, to preserve the just and ancient government of the Realm. They demanded advice TOVCHING LAW AND CONSCIENCE, OF MANY LEARNED LAWYERS AND DIVINES; who resolved, THAT THEY MIGHT LAWFVLLY oppose themselves against the Government which the House of Guise had usurped, and AT NEED TAKE ARMS TO REPVLSE THEIR VIOLENCE; so as the Princes, who in this case are born Magistrates, or someone of them would undertake it, being ordered by the States of the Realm, or by the sounder part of them. That defense of Religion and Liberties against violence and oppression were just causes of War; Et quod pia arma ea sint, ultra quae nulla restat spesvitae nec salutis. A like resolution and determination was mad • by the chief Dukes, Peers, Nobles, and Officers of France, Anno 1614. which you may read in the Appendix.

Thirdly, that the Angrognians and Waldensian Protestants of Lucerne and Piedment in the year 1558. to 1561. being persecuted by the Lord of Trinity and their Popish Sovereigns, assembling solemnly together to consult how to prevent the great dangers then at hand, after long prayer and calling upon God for his grace and Spirit of direction and Counsel, well to manage their weighty affairs, and to preserve themselves and the Protest • nt Religion professed by them, concluded in the end, to enter into a solemn mutuali Covenant, and to join in a League together for defense of themselves and their Religion; whereupon they all promised by God's grace and assistance, to maintain the pure preaching of the Gospel and administration of the Sacraments, and one to aid and assist the other, &c. which they did with good success, obtaining many glorious victories against invading persecuting enemies. The like did Zis • a, the Thaborites and Bohemians heretofore, and of later times; as the Maginall Authors largely relate, resolving it just and lawful for them in Law and Conscience, to defend themselves and their Religion by force of Arms against their persecuting Sovereigns.

Fourthly, that the Netherland Provinces, being oppressed in their Bodies, Estates, by the Duke of Alua and Spaniards Tyrannie, and in their Religion and Consciences, by the introduced Inquisition to extirpate Religion; did after serious deliberation, and consultation with learned men of all sorts, unanimously conclude and enter into a solemn Covenant to defend their Libities, Religion, Laws, by force of Arms, against the Spanish Tyrannie; as you may read at large in their Histories. And in the year 1572. The Prince of Orange and his Confederates having levied a goodly Army to relieve Mons besieged by the Duke of Alua, caused this notable Protestation to be printed and published to the World, as well in his own name, as in his Confederates, giving a reason of the Arms which he had taken up, as followeth.

We William by the Grace of God, Prince of Orange, Earl of Nassau, &c. To all Noble-men, Knights, Gentlemen, and others, of what quality soever of these Netherlands which desire the Liberty thereof, being miserably tyrannized and oppressed by the Duke of Alva, the Spaniards, and other their friends, TRAYTORS AND MVRTHERERS OF THEIR OWN COVNTREY, We declare that every one of us, for a particular love and zeal he bears unto his Country, and for the glory of God, which we desire above all, have often sought by all means the good and quiet of the Country, as well by Petitions and other mild mean▪ as by force of Arms, thinking to draw those that were as we are, to do the like, sometimes by sighs and prayers unto God, having had patience until that it should please him to mollify the hearts of the said Tyrants; but in the end solicited and called generally and particularly by the inhabitants of the said Country, by reason of the inhumanities and oppressions; We have in the Name of God (ACCORDING TO OUR CONSCIENCES) TAKEN ARMES; protesting before God and his Angels, and before all Men present and to come, that we have not been moved hereunto by any private passion, but with an ardent desire which we have to oppose ourselves against this more then barbarous and unsupportable tyranny, to the Proclamations, Edicts, taxes, Imposts and charges of the hundredth, thirtieth, twentieth and tenth penny imposed by the in satiable covetousness of the Duke of Alva, against the Laws Liberties, Freedomes, and ancient Privileges of the said country; which Laws, Liberties, freedoms and ancient privileges, we mean (by the grace of God) to restore unto the said country, holding it under the obedience of their Prince and nature all Lord, as we are bound to do: affirming and maintaining, that all Princes and Noblemen, Gentlemen, Commonweales, or others, of what quality 〈◊〉 be they strangers or home-bred, that have been moved to give us 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 IN THIS SO IVST AN ENTERPRISE, have not don it for any other • 〈◊〉 but for true piety and compassion which they have with us of the said 〈◊〉 and • alamities: Wherefore we pray and entreat everyone, both in general 〈◊〉 p •• ticular, to assure themselves, that we intend not to do wrong to any man, nor to attempt upon the good estates or honor of any of what quality soever, were he of the • lergy, but are ready to aid and assist everyone freely and willingly; as for his liberty EVERY ONE IS BOUND TO SVCCOR VS BY ALL DVE AND POSSIBLE MEANES. In the mean time we will give order, that God and the country may be served, in procuring the preservation of the people, and the defense of their houses, wives, and children: Praying to God, that he would favor and bring to a good end SO HOLY AND NECESSARY AN ENTERPRIZE.

This their defensive War, yet continuing, hath been justified by many, and in special maintained to be just and honorable BOTH IN LAW AND CONSCIENCE in a particular Book De jure Belli Belgici, printed at the Hague with the States approbation, 1599. to which I shall refer you.

Fifthly, (which comes nearest to our present case of any story I have met with) Alphonso the 3. king of Aragon, in the year 1286, through the ill advise of some bad Counselors and Courtiers about him, departed in discontent from the Parliament of the Estates of Aragon then assembled at Saragossa, and posted to Osca, because the Parliament took upon them to make Laws to reform and order his Court, his Courtiers, which he denied, but they affirmed, they had justright and power to do. Hereupon, the business being put unto geeater difficulty; the Estates affirmed. A Comitiis intempestive discedere Regi NEFAS ESSE, That IT WAS A WICKED ACT, FOR THE KING THUS VNSEASONABLY TO DEPART FROM THE PARLIAMENT, NEITHER WAS SO GREAT A BREACH OF THEIR PRIVILEDGES AND RIGHTS TO BE PATIENTLY ENDVR • D: Whereupon they presently raised up the Name and FORCES OF THE UNION or Association (formerly made and entered into between the Nobility, Cities, and people, mutually to aid and assist one another to preserve the Peace and Liberties of the Realm, even with force of Arms) IT BEING LAWFVLL for the common cause of Liberty; Non Verbis solum. SED ARMIS QVOQVE CONTENDERE, not only TO CONTEND with words, BVT ALSO WITH ARMES. Upon this, king Alphonso desirous to prevent the mischiefs then present and incumbent, by advise of his Privy Counsel, published certain good Edicts at Osca for regulating his Court, Counsel, Judges, Officers; by which he thought to have ended all this Controversy, but because they were promulgated only by the Kings own Edict, not by the whole Parliament as binding Laws, they still proceeded in the Union; till at last, after various events of things, this King returning to the General Assembly, and Parliament of the Estates at Saragossa, in the year 1287. condescended to their desires, and confirmed the two memorable privileges of the Union, with the Sovereign power of the Justice of Aragon, which could control their very Kings: Of which see more in the Appendix.

I shall close up this of the lawfulness of a necessary defensive war, with the speech of the Emperor Alexander Seuerus, recorded by Herodian, l. 5. He who first infers injuries hath no probable color; but he that repulseth those who are troublesome to him; EX BONA CONSCENTIA sumit fid • c • am; assumes confidence FROM A GOOD CONSCIENCE, and good hope of success is present with him from hence, that he offers not injury, but removes it.

Thus have I now at last waded thorough this weighty controversy, of the lawfulness both in point of Law and Conscience, of the Parliaments present, and all other subjects necessary Defensive Wars against their Sovereigns, who invade their laws liberties, Religion, Government, to subvert them, by open force of Arms: in which I have freely and impartially discharged my conscience, not out of any turbulent, seditious, or disloyal intention, to foment or perpetuate the present, or raise any future destructive, unnatural wars between king, Parliament, and People, or to countenance, to encourage any tumultuous, rebellious, factious, ambitious, traitorous spirits to mutiny or rebel against their Sovereigns for private injuries, or upon any false unwarrantable ends or pretences whatsoever; (let God's curse and men's for ever rest upon all those, who are in love with any war, especially a Civil, within their own dearest Countries bowels; or dare abuse my loyal sincere Lucubrations to any disloyal sinister designs, to the prejudice of their Sovereigns, or the States wherein they live:) but only out of a cordial desire to effect such a speedy, honorable, safe, religious, sempiternall peace between king and Parliament, as all true Christian English hearts both cordially pray, long for, and endeavor, by informing his seduced Majesty, his evil Cou • sellors, his Popish Ma • ignant Forces, that if they will still proceed unnaturally and treacherously to make war against their Native Country, Religion, Laws, Liberties, and the Parliament, (which to do I have elsewhere manifested to be no less then high Treason, Rebellion, against both King and Kingdom) they may in point of conscience and Law too, be justly opposed, resisted, repulsed, even by force of Arms, without any guilt of Treason, Rebellion, or fear of temporal or eternal condemnation, as public Enemies, Rebels, Traitors to the Realm, whateve • er they have hitherto been informed of to the contrary by temporizing Lawyers, or flattering illiterate Court Divines; and by assuring all such noble generous public spirits, who shall willingly adventure their lives or fortunes by the Parliaments command, in the present necessary defensive war, for the ends pr • mised; that for this good service they shall neither in the Courts of Law. nor Conscience, incur the least stain, or guilt of Treason, Rebellion, sedition, or any such like odious crime, much less eternal condemnation; the panic fear whereof, frequently denounced against them by many sottish Malignants, Royalists, ill-instructed Lawyers and Theologasters, hath frighted, kept back, and withdrawn multitudes from, yea cooled, corrupted many in this honorable public duty, service, which they now owe of Right to God and their Country; in which to be treacherous, perfidious, slothful, negligent, cold, uncordiall, or timorous (as too many hitherto have been, to the greater honor of those who have been faithful, active, Valiant, and sincere) especially now after so many late horrid treacheries most happily discovered and a new Covenant solemnly entered into, demerits a perpetual brand of i • famy and reproach. To die fighting for ones dearest bleeding, dying Country, hath in all ages been honored with a Crown of Martyrdom; to live or die fighting against it hath ever deserved the most capital censures, ignominies, and heaviest execrations. Let both sides therefore now seriously ponder and lay all the premises close to their souls, consciences; and then I doubt not through God's blessing, but a happy peace will speedily thereon ensue Nation shall not lift up sword against Nation, Country against Country, Englishman against Englishman, Brother against brother anymore, as now they do, neither shall they learn such an unnatural cursed kind of Civil War anymore, but beat their swords into Plow-shares, and their spears into pruning • ooks; and greet one another with a kiss of holy peace and charity: Which desired end and issue of these present bloody wars God in his mercy hasten and accomplish, to the joy of all our Souls.

I should now, according to former engagements, proceed to other remaining particulars; but because this part hath already far exceeded its intended bounds, out of a desire to give full satisfaction in a point of highest present, and future concernment every way; I shall reserve the residue, with the Appendix, for another distinct part; with which I shall conclude my Meditations and Collections of this subject, without any further Additions, if God say Amen.

Errata in some Copies.

PAg. 100. l. 8. to. by. p. 101. l. 32. Omri, Zimri. l. 40. Judah, Israel. p. 115. l. 12. that. p. 127. l. 36. of their. p. 128. l. 31. hence. p 136. l. 8. not a Bishop; a Bishop, not a Lay-man. p. 14. l. 17. dele as: p. 15. 1. 16. brevis. p. 26. l. 1. assistants. p. 94. l. 22. offer to, r. ask of. p. 17. 1. l. 8 no man should long. p. 105. l. • 2. • ipodes. p. 106. l. 2. Rulers, l. 34. irresistance. p. 107. l. 3. by the. p. 121. l. 16. Emperors. l. 36. Emperor.

To the READER.

I Here present thee with the last Part, of The Sovereign Power of Parliaments and Kingdoms, and An Appendix in pursuance of it; abundantly manifesting, from the very fundamental Constitutions, L ••• es, Customs, Resolutions, Remonstrances, Oaths, Inaugurations▪ Elections, Ceremonies, Histories, public Transactions, Treaties, Agreements, Wars, of Forain Empires, Emperors, Realms, Kings, States, Senates, Diets, Parliaments, in all Ages, and the most judicious foreign Authors of all sorts; That whole Kingdoms, Parliaments, Senates, States, Nations collectively considered, have ever constantly enjoyed in all Ages, Nations▪ the most Sovereign Jurisdiction, and Authority, and been Paramount their Kings and Emperors, who were and are subordinate, account • ble for their actions to them; and copiously refuting the fond erroneous fancies of all illiterate flattering Court-Doctors, Theologasters, Lawyers, Statists, who, without any shadow of Truth or Reason, audaciously aver the contrary, not so much to f • atter or seduce their Princes, as to advance themselves; against whom the contrary constant practice and resolutions of most lawful Kingdoms, that either are or have been in the world from Adams days till now, shall unanimously rise in judgment, and pass a most Catholic irreversible sentence on them, for their notorious flatteries and Impostures.

For mine own particular, as I have always been, and ever shall be an honourer, a defender of Kings and Monarchy (the best of Government, whiles it keeps within the bounds which Law and Conscience have prescribed;) So, I shall never degenerate so far beneath the duty of a Man, a Lawyer, a Scholar, a Christian, as to mis-inform, or flatter either; nor yet (out of any popular vain-glory) court either Parliaments or People, to the prejudice of Kings just Royalties; but carry such an equal hand between them, as shall do right to both, injury to neither; and preserve, support their just, Legal several Soveraignties, Jurisdictions, Rights, within their proper limits, without tyrannical invasions, or seditious encroachments, upon one another, to their mutual and the Republickes prejudice.

It fares with Regal and Popular Powers, usually, as with Seas and mighty Rivers, if they violently break down, or swellingly overflow their fixed banks, they presently cause an Inundation, and instead of watering, surround, and drown the Countries round about th • m, for a season, (sometimes for sundry years) ere they can be perfectly drained, and their banks repaired, to confine them to their ancient proper Channels,; of which we have present sad experience, written in Capitall red Bloody Letters, throughout the Realm. To redress, prevent which overflowing mischief for the future, I have without fear or flattery of any bumane Power, or party whatsoever, by Public Authority divulged this last, and the three preceding Parts of this Discourse: together with the Appendix, (all hastily collected, and more confusedly compacted through went of time, and sundry interrupting Avocations, then I desired) wherein I have impartially, according to my • udgement, conscience, defended naught, but ancient, undoubted, universal Truthes of real State-Policy, and true Theology, (almost forgotten in the world, yea cried, Preached, Printed down for erroneous, seditious Paradoxes, if not Treasons, by Sycophants and Malignants in these later ages;) out of a cordial affect • on as much as in me lieth, to restore and settle the weal, tranquility, and safety of my bleeding, dying Country, now miserably distracted, wasted, consumed everywhere: (through the long fore plotted conspiracies of Romish Priests and Jesuits, to subvert the Protestant Religion and our Realms) upon a pretended quarrel unhappily raised by them, between the two mu • h mistaken Grand Sovereign Jurisdictions, of King and Parliament, Crown and Kingdom, now miserably clashing one against the other, through ignorance and mistakes, and trying their Titles in the open field BY BATTAILE, instead of Law; by the Sword of the Soldier, not of the Spirit, the only proper peaceable Judges in these Quarrels, by which alone they can and must be finally resolved, settled; else neither King nor kingdom, can be ever quiet, or secure from dangers, and Commotions.

I dare not presume to arrogate to myself, a Spirit of in • errability in the grand Controversies here debated, wherein I have travelled in no beaten common road; No doubt General, National Councils, Parliaments, Popes, Kings, Counselors, Statesmen, Lawyers, Divines, all sorts of men, both may, and usually do err from Truth, (especially in Questions which concern their own Jurisdictions, Honors, Profits;) and so may I. But this I dare with safe conscience protest to all the world, that I have not willingly erred in any particular; and if I have casually failed in anything, out of human frailty, I shall (upon better information) acknowledge and retract it. In the mean time, I trust, I have here sufficiently discovered, refuted, many common impostures and erroneous gross mistakes in Law, Policy, Divinity, Antiquity; which have in later ages been generally received as indubitable verities, by most men; yea professedly defended by sundry injudicious Lawyers, and ignorant Divines (though perchance reputed learned, solid in their own, and others opinions) who never took the pains to dive into the true original fundamental creations, institutions, public Laws, Reasons, Policies, Jurisdictions, compositions, Rights, Customs, Histories of Kings, Kingdoms, Parliaments, States, Magistrates, People; the ignorance whereof, hath made them confidently vent many grand absurdities, and untruths, to the prejudice, imbroyling, and almost utter ruin of divers Kings and States; which now, I hope, they will ingenuously acknowledge and recant with real grief and shame, that they have so grossly cheated, seduced Kings, Kingdoms, People, and oft times stirred up civil wars, to maintain their idle lies, crazy fictions, as just Royal Rights, and indubitable Prerogatives, when as they are nothing less.

I shall not beg any man's belief, of any Truth here newly discovered, further than his own Judgment & conscience, upon serious consideration, shall convince him of it; and himself discern it fully ratified by substantial precedents and Authorities in the body and close of the Treatise & Appendix: Only this I shall request of every Reader, to peruse over all the Parts of this Discourse with a cordial Love of Truth and Peace; and when he is convinced what is Truth, then to live and die in Paul's resolution, 2 Cor. 13. 8. We can do nothing against the Truth, but for the Truth. It was our Savior's own reply to Pilate, John 18. 37. For this end was I borne, and for this cause came I into the world, THAT I SHOULD BEARE WITNESSE UNTO THE TRUTH; O then let it now be every ones end, and practice too; since it is the Truth (and nothing else) that shall make (and keep) us free: Free, from Errors, Troubles, Tumults, Wars; Slavery, Tyranny, Treachery, Popery, dangers, fears: Wherefore, love the Truth and Peace, and then through God's mercy we shall speedily regain, retain them both.

The Parliaments Interest in the Militia, Forts, Navy, & Officers of the Kingdom.

I N the preceding Parts of this Discourse, I have with as much perspicuity and sincerity as I could, waded through those deep and weighty differences of greatest importance, which have lately (to our great unhappiness) I know not by what evil spirits solicitation, unexpectedly risen up by insensible degrees, between the Kings Majesty, and the present Parliament; (whose primitive sweet agreement, made us not so happy, as their subsequent Divisions in place, affection, opinion, have rendered the whole three Kingdoms miserable,) in point of Royal Prerogatives only, which I have dispatched: I should now proceed to other Controversies between them, principally concerning the Subjects Liberties; But before I pass to those particulars; I shall present you with some few Records of special note (casually omitted in their proper place, through over-much haste, and want of time) which will very much clear the Parliaments just right, and ancient Jurisdiction In ordering the Militia of the Realm, by Sea and Land; in disposing the Ships, the Forts of the Realm for the public safety in times of danger; in concluding matters of War and Peace; in placing and displacing the great Officers, the Privy Counselors of the Kingdom; yea regulating the Kings own household, and meniall servants oft times; when there was occasion; which may serve as a supplement to the second part.

It it the determination of Henricus Rauzovius, a Noble Dane, a great Statesman and Soldier in his Commentarius Bellicus, Dedicated to Christierne the fourth, King of Denmark, Anno 1565. lib. 1. c. 3. That all Kings and Princes in most Republickes, rightly and lawfully constituted, are obliged by their paction entered into before their Inauguration, Not to begin or move any War without the consent of all the Estates and Nobles. Thus in my hearing, Philip King of Spain, when he demanded and took an Oath from his Subjects in the Netherlands, promised by a mutual Oath to the Estates, That he would make no war in those parts without their privi • y. The same also (most Noble King) is received and observed not only in your Kingdoms and 〈◊〉 , but likewise is in use almost in all Europe. Therefore Frederick your Father of most famous memory, knowing himself to be bound hereunto by compact, before he would be involved in the Swedish War, communicating the whole business faithfully to his people, as well to the Senators of the Realm, as to the Nobles of the Dukedoms, maturely advised with them about the manner of waging it. Wherefore, lest the War which is undertaken be accused as unjust by the States, because it was undertaken without their advice, contrary to custom and agreements, all ought to be assumed into the Counsel and care of War. For thus it will come to pass, besides, that things very well thought on and deliberated by many, have for the most part better successes, then those things which are rashly begun by someone; that the Subjects, who not unwillingly bring their estates and lives into danger, will less fear the loss of both, will fight more valiantly, and will put forth all their strength in prosecuting and ending the combat of war, even for this reason, that themselves have been the advisers of the war. Upon this reason, not only the Kings of the Jews, Aragon, France, Nav • re, and others, (as I have manifested in the Appendix) but even of this our Realm, have usually undertaken all their wars, and ordered all their Military affairs, both by Sea and Land, by the advice and direction of their Parliaments, as the Grand Council of War, both for King and Kingdom. This I have plentifully manifested in the premises, by sundry examples, and shall here only briefly ratify with some few new Precedents.

In the first Parliament of 13 Ed. 3. after Proclamation made, Num. 2. That none should come armed with weapons to the Parliament, Num. 3. The causes of summoning the Parliament were shown to the Lord's and Commons, to have their counsel and advice therein, what was best to be done; and expressed to be three. First, that everyone, great and small, should consider, in what manner the peace might most surely be preserved within the Realm. Secondly, how the Marches of Scotland, and the Northern parts might be best defended and kept against the enemies of Scotland. Thirdly, how the Sea should be guarded against the enemies, that they should do no damage, nor enter the Realm for to destroy it. After thus. Num. 4. The Bishops and Letters from the King then in France, relate to the Houses the Estate of the Kings Army, wars, and proceedings in France, and the great debts the King stood engaged in for the maintenance of his Army; for discharge whereof and the Kings further relief in the easiest way, to support his wars the Lord's condescended to grant the ninth sheaf of all their corn, and the ninth fleece and Lamb of all their flocks to the King, for the two next years, so as the custom of Mal-tolt, newly imposed on Woolls, should be released, and this grant not drawn hereafter into custom, as a precedent to their prejudice. Who acquainting the Commons therewith, they after deliberation; As to the Kings supply; returned this Answer. Num. 8, 9. That they thought it meet the King should be supplied, and were ready to aid him, as they had always formerly been, but yet as the aid was granted in this case, they durst not assent to it, until they had consulted and advised with the Commons in the Country; for which end they craved time to go into their Counties, and that Writs might issue to summon another Parliament on the Octaves of Saint Hillary, of the richest Knights in every Shire at a short day to come, (which, was condescended to.) After which, Num. 9, 10, 11. they gave this answer in writing concerning the three Articles propounded to them: First, As to the keeping of the peace of the Realm, that the Justices of the Peace had sufficient power already to that purpose; only they add, that disturbers of the peace should not be let out of Prison, but upon sufficient Bail, and that no Charters of pardon should be granted to Felons, but by common consent in Parliament, and all other pardons held as void. To the second they answered, That the King before his going beyond the Seas had taken so good order, and appointed such sufficient Guardians to defend the Marches of Scotland, who were best able to guard those parts, that the enforcement of them by the Kings Council would be sufficient, without any charge to the Commons; Only, they ordered, that every man who had Lands in the Marches of Scotland, of what condition soever they were, should reside upon them to defend them (as it had been formerly ordained) without charge to the Commons. To the third, concerning the guard of the Seas: The Commons prayed that they might not be charged to give Counsel in things of which they had no conisance (or charge;) and that they were advised, that the Barons of the Ports which at all times have honors before all the Commons of the Land, and are so enfranchized to guard the Sea between us and strangers, (if so be it falls out, that they will enter and assail our Land) that they contribute to no aids nor charges on the said Land, but receive profits without number arising by the Sea, for the Guard aforesaid. Wherefore the Commons are advised, that they ought to maintain a guard upon the Sea, as the Commons do upon the Land, without taking or demanding wages. Likewise, there are other great Towns and Havens which have a Navy, that are in the same case, and are bound to guard the Sea. And as for the safeguard of the Watch-houses upon the Sea by Land; let the guard of them be made by the advice of the Knights of the Shire, where the said Guardians are assigned, in the safest manner that may be, without charge of the Commons: And that the people of the Land, of what condition soever, which have lands on the Coast, shall keep residence upon those Lands, the better to repulse the enemies from the Land, so that for their abiding there, they shall be discharged to give any aide toward the same guard elsewhere. Num. 13. The Commons frame and demand a general pardon, upon grant whereof they promise to aide the King with monies. Num. 14. They make an Ordinance for increase of monies in the Realm. Num. 15. Because the ships of England went not out together in Fleetes, to trade, but severally, out of desire of gain and covetousness, and so many of them were taken by the Enemies of the King, and the men slain and murdered, to the dishonor of the King and the whole Realm; it was agreed, and assented in full Parliament, that all the Navy should stay and be arrested, till further order were given to the contrary. Num. 16. It was accorded and assented in Parliament, that the Bishops and Lord's in the Parliament, should send Letters to the Archbishop of York, and the Clergy of his Province, under their Seals, to excite them to grant a convenient aid for the guard of the Marches of Scotland, for the defense of the Church, the Realm, and themselves, as the Clergy of the Province of Canterbury had done. Num. 17. It is accorded, that Master Robert de Scardeburgh shall be put into the Commission which shall be sent into the County of York, to survey the Array of the people, which shall be chosen for the defense of the Realm, in lieu of Sir Thomas de Blaston. That Sir Richard Chastell shall be put in the Commission to survey the Array in the Counties of Nottingham and Derby, and John Feriby in the County of Lancaster. Num. 18. It is assented that the people of Holdernes shall be Arrayed, taxed, and make aid for the guarding of the Marches of Scotland, and other businesses of the King in those parts, notwithstanding the Commission made to them to guard the Sea, Num. 21. The Lord's who have Lands towards the Marches of Scotland, are commanded and prayed by writs and Letters to repair thither for defense thereof, namely the Lord's of Ros, Wake, Mowbray, Clifford, and Master William Daubeny Steward of the Earl of Richmond, and that those who could not in this case go in proper person, should send their people to the Lord's in the Marches.

In the second Parliament held this year, by appointment of the first (Octabis Hilarii, 13. Ed. 3. Num. 2. 5. Edward Duke of Cornwall, Guardian of England (in the Kings absence) being hindered by other businesses to be present in this Parliament, by Letters Patents under the Kings great Seal, appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury, and others to supply his place, and hold the Parliament. Num. 6, 7, 8, 9. The Commons for the defense of the Realm, Sea, and Marches of Scotland, granted the King thirty thousand sacks of Wooll, and the Earls and Barons, the ninth sheaf, Fleece and Lamb, within their Demesne Lands; and agreed to raise a great sum of money presently, to set out a fleet of Ships to Sea, fraught with men of arms, and archers for defense of the Realm. Num. 10. All the Merchants of England, were summoned by writ to appear at Westminster in proper person, to confer upon great businesses concerning the Kings honor, the salvation of the Realm, and of themselves. Num. 11. The Mariners of the Cinque-ports upon their departure promised to make their ships ready by Mid-Lent; and were to receive a sum of money to help defray their charges herein; and the men of the Cinque-ports, promised to defray the moity of the costs; and the Kings Counsel the other moity, but not in name of wages, but out of special grace; and the Cinque-ports were to find 21 ships of their own, and nine ships of the River of Thames. Num. 12. The Mariners towards the West promised to find 70. ships of an hundred Tunne and upwards, and to make them ready by the same day; and to defray the charges of them as far as was requisite; and for the residue, the Kings Counsel were to send them a sum of money for their aide, but not as wages, but of special grace; and a Clerke was ordained to survey the charges of the Mariners of the West; and of the Cinque-ports. Num. 23. All the ships of Portsmouth, and the West, were to meet at Dartmouth at the day assigNed; and the Earl of Arundell was assigned their Admiral; And the ships of the Cinque-ports and the River of Thames, were to meet, & assemble at Winchelse, and the Earl of Huntindon, appointed their Admiral; and that all these ships should be ready by the middle of Lent, Num. 19. The Admiralls of all parts were commanded to arrest all other ships, that might pass the Seas, for fear of being surprised by the enemies, & that 200. men s • old man those to whom the smaller ships belonged, to bring them into such havens where they might be safest from the Enemies. Num. 15. Writs were directed to all Sheriffs of England to make Proclamation, that all those who had Charters of pardon, should repair towards the Sea, in the service of the King, and at his wages by the middle of Lent, upon pain of losing their Charters, and being put to answer the things contained in them, in case they should not go. Num. 16. It was accorded and assented in Parliament, that Master Richard Talbot ordained to guard the Town of Southampton, which he had undertaken to do, should have a company of men at Arms, and Archers at the Kings wages, which he might increase if there were cause; that he and they should have their wages paid them monthly, from the second Sunday in Lent, and so forwards whiles they continued in that Service, & that he should receive 200. pounds in money, and 200. marks in Wooll, in respect of his said service, and to defray his ancient debts. And he had power given him to assesse and levy monies upon the said Town, towards its defense; and if the Town were not able to defray all the charge, the King should aid them for the residue.

Num. 18. The Bishop of Winchester, the Prior of St. Swithin of Winchester, and the Abbot of Winchester, were commanded to have the people of their Manners next the Town of Southhampton well a • med and arrayed, that they might be ready to their power to defend the said town, upon summons of the Guardians thereof▪ that no peril might happen thereunto, Num. 19. That two Pinaces, one of Melbroke, and the other belonging to Roger Norman • , should be assigned to remain in the port of Southampton, at the appoi • tment of the said Mr. Richard, for the safety the • eof. Num. 20. All the Burgesses and Sea-men of the Town which had departed thence, were ordered to go and abide therein 〈◊〉 the defense thereof, and of their own possessions; and in case they refu • ed, that their Lands and Possessions should be seized into the Kings hands, and the profits of their Lands which should be found elsewhere. Num. 21. That a Commission should be made to Stephen Butterly, and William Weston, Serjeants at Arms, to take Timber, Bords, and other things necessary for the safety of the said Town at certain prises, upon endenture made between them and the owners of the said goods; and that the King should pay, or give them other satisfaction. Num. 22. 23. That all the Arms, Engines, Ammunition, Iron and Lead in the said Town, should be delivered to the Guardian of it by Indenture; who should have the same power in all things within that Town, as the Earl of Warwick had, when he was Governor. Num. 24. That the Sheriff should have a Writ of attendance, to be attendant on the said Mr. Richard, with Victuals, and all other things necessary for the safeguard of the said Town. Num. 25. 26. 27. Certain Merchants are appointed and take upon them to the Parliament, to buy great proportions of Corn, Peas, Oats, Hay, and other provi • ions, (the quantities whereof are particularly expressed) at certain rates, to victual Barwicke, the Castles of Edenburg, and Strivelyn, (which Castles Mr. Thomas Rokeby, Guardian thereof, promised to keep till Saint John's day then next to come, upon condition to receive his wages formerly due, out of the first moneys granted to the King in this Parliament,) by a certain day; provided they shall carry no victuals to the enemies of the King and Realm, and that they should be paid out of the first moneys arising out of the aid granted to the King. Num. 28. 29. The inhabitants of the • sle of Wight were respited of the aid granted to the King, according as their good carriage should be during the war; and it was agreed in Parliament, that no Commandment nor Ordnance, or license granted under the great or privy Seal, to any of the said inhabitants bound to defend the said Isle, should license any to absent himself from it during the war, unless it were for fear of disinheriting or other great necessity: with which the Council should be acquainted, or upon in quests. Num. 30. 31. Provides, that the Castle of Caresbr •• in the I will of Weight should be furnished with a certa • ne proportion of Wine▪ Corn, Peas, O • ts, Hey, Coles▪ Iron, Salt; and that a Commission should be granted to Robert Vandalym Sheriff of Southampton, and to William of Kekenwich jointly and severally, to purvey and deliver the same provisions over by Indenture, to the Constable of that Castle; and a Writ directed to the Kings Botteller, to deliver the Wines assigned (to wit ten Tonne) out of the Wines then in, or which should first come into his hands. Num. 32. Mr. Thomas Ferrers undertakes to the Parliament, to send without delay a sufficient man to the Castle of Iernsey, to survey she defaults and state of the said Castle, to certify the Council fully of them; and in the mean time to find the wages of those remaining there in garrison, to the sum of an hundred pounds; and a Writ is directed to the Sheriff of Southampton, to furnish the said Thomas with a convenient quantity of Powder, and Iron, and other necessaries for the defense of that Castle. And because Thomas Peyne, one of the Jurates of that Isle was gone to the enemies, contrary to a defense made, that a Writ should issue to the Bailiffs and Jurates of the same Isle to choose another sufficient man in his place, and to seize his Lands, goods, and Chattels into the Kings hands, and answer the meesne profits of them. Num. 34. dorso. There is an exact Array or List of all the Captains and men at Arms, and archers under their several commands for defense of the borders of Scotland, amounting in all to 4715. Num. 35. Those of the Counties of Nottingham, Derby, York, were to go to Newcastle upon Tine, at the Countries charges, and then to receive the Kings wages: and those of Westmorland, Cumberland and Lancashire, to marth to Carlisle at the Counties charges, and then to receive the Kings wages; and that the Commanders, great men, and all the host when they assembled sh • uld lie and travel in the Land of Scotland, and not in the Marches of England. Num. 36. 37. A fit and trusty Clerke is appointed to pay the Soldiers wages by the advise and survey of the Lord's Percy and Nevill, and Merchants are ordered to return moneys for the exploit, and to furnish the King of Scotland with moneys sufficient to maintain twenty men at Arms. Num. 38. Because Mr. Richard Talbot had discharged himself of the government of Barwicke, the Lord's in Parliament earnestly entreated Sir Walter Creake to take upon him the custody of Barwicke, and to certify the Lord's within a short time, how many men at Arms and Archers would suffice to guard it, and whether he would accept of the charge or not; and if not, they would provide another. Num. 39. A Commission is granted to Master Thomas Wake and others to muster the Horse and Foot arrayed for this expedition in Yorkshire and the other Counties, and to conduct them towards Newcastle. Num. 46. It is accorded and assented, that Writs shall be made to the arrayers of the Men of Arms, Hoblers, and Archers, in the Country of Oxford, for the guarding of the Sea, for the Prior and Canons of Burnacester, to surcease their demand which they made to the said Prior and Canons to find a man at Arms and two Archers to make such a guard at Portsmouth; and also for the payment of certain moneys for this cause, until they have other command from the King; by reason that the Prelates and other great men in the Parliament are informed, that all the possessions of their house will hardly suffice for their sustenance, and that they cannot find such charge without very great oppression of them and their house.

Loe here in these two Parliaments (the Rols whereof I have recited more largely, because rare and memorable) all businesses concerning the Wars, Militia and Array both by Land and Sea, were particularly consulted of, ordered, and determined in and by the Parliament only; in a far more ample manner then this present Parliament at first petitioned, desired they should have been ordered and settled now.

In the Parliament rolls 14 E. 3. Num. 19. Certain men are appointed to guard the Islands and Sea-coasts against the enemies. Num. 42. The Lord Mowbray is appointed keeper of the Town of Barwick • . Num. 53. 54. 55. &c. Commissions of Array in several Counties are made by Parliament to the Earl of Angoyes and others, for defense of the Kingdom.

In the Parliament of 50 E. 3. Num. 15. A Commission is granted in Parliament to the Lord Percy and others, to appoint able persons for defense of the Marches of the East-riding.

In the Parliament of 7 & 8 H. 4. Num. 26. The Parliament gave power to the Merchants to name two meet persons to be Admirals, to guard the Seas.