The Sovereign Power of Parliaments and Kingdoms Part 3

THE SOVERAIGNE POWER OF PARLIAMENTS & KINGDOMES: PROVING Ist.

That the Parliaments present necessary Defensive War, is Just and Lawfull both in point of Law and Conscience, and no Treason nor Rebellion.

H Aving in the two former Parts of this Discourse dissipated four chief Complaints against the Parliaments proceedings; I come now in order (in point of time and sequel) to the 5 ^th Grand Objection of the King, Royalists, and Papists against the Parliament. To wit: That they have traitorously taken up Arms, and levied war against the King himself in his Kingdom; and would have taken away his life at Keinton battle, which is no less than Rebellion and High Treason, by the Statute of 25. E. 3. c. 2. with other obsolete Acts; and by the Common Law. Which Objection, though last in time, is yet of greatest weight and difficulty, now most cried up and insisted on, of all the rest, in many of his Majesty's late Proclamations, Declarations, and in Anti-Parliamentary Pamphlets.

To give a punctual Answer to this capital Complaint, not out of any desire to foment, but cease this most unnatural bloody war, which threatens utter desolation to us if proceeded in, or not determined with a just, honorable, secure, lasting peace; now lately rejected by his Majesty's party. I say,

First, that it is apparent to all the world, who are not willfully or maliciously blinded; That this Majesty first began this war, not only by his endeavors to bring up the Northern Army to force the Parliament, confessed by the flight, letters, examinations of those who were chief Actors in it; but by raising sundry forces under color of a guard before the Parliament levied any.

Secondly, that the Parliament in raising their forces had no intention at all to offer the least violence to his Majesty's person, Crown, dignity, nor to draw any English blood; but only to defend themselves and the Kingdom against his Majesty's Malignant invasive plundering Forces, to rescue his Majesty out of the hands, the power of those ill Counselors and Malignants who withdrew him from his Parliament, to bring him back with honor, peace, safety, to his great Council; (their General and Army Marching with a Petition to this purpose,) and to bring those Delinquents to condign punishment who most contemptuously deserted the Houses, contrary to Order, Law, the Privileges of Parliament, their own Protestation taken in both Houses, sheltering themselves, under the power of his Majesty's presence and Forces, from the justice of the Houses, and apprehension of their Officers, contrary to all presidents in former ages, in High affront of the privileges, honor, power of the Parliament, and Fundamental knowns Law of the Realm: Since which time, his Majesty having (contrary to his former Proclamations and frequent Printed solemn Declarations ) entertained, not only divers Irish Pop • sh Rebels, but likewise English and Outlandish Papists in his Army, and given Commissions to sundry Arch Popish Recusants, to Arm themselves, and raise Forces against the Parliament, and Kingdom, now in the field in all the Northern parts, Wales, and other places, (and that under the Popes own consecrated Banner as many report) in defiance of our Protestant Religion, (designed by the Popish Party both at home and abroad, to no less then utter extirpation in England, as well as in Ireland, if not in Scotland too, (as some of them openly profess;) the Parliament are hereupon necessitated to augment and recrute their forces; as for the precedent ends at first, so now more especially, for the necessary defense of the Protestant Religion established among us by law; against which they (and all others who are not willfully blinded) visibly discern a most apparent desperate conspiracy; which though not clearly perceived, but only justly suspected at first, doth now appear (all circumstances and agents considered) to be the very Embryo and primitive cause of this deplorable war; against which the Parliament and subjects are now more necessitated and engaged to descend themselves then ever, seeing they have by all possible means endeavored to prevent this war at first, and since to accommodate it, though in vain, upon just, reasonable, and honorable safe terms for King and Kingdom. The sole Question then in this case thus truly stated will be.

Whether his Majesty, having contrary to his Oath, Duty, the fundamental Laws of God and the Realm, raised an Army of Malignants, Papists, Foreigners; against his Parliament, Kingdom, People, to make an Offensive war upon them, to murder, rob, spoil, deprive them of their peace, liberties, properties, estates; to impose unlawful taxes by force upon them; protect Delinquents and evil Counselors against the Parliaments Justice, and violently to undermine our established Protestant Religion; the Common-wealth of England legally assembled in Parliament; and all Subjects in such cases by Command and direction from both Houses of Parliament, may not lawfully and justly without any Treason or Rebellion, in point of Law and Conscience, take up defensive Arms to preserve the Privileges of Parliament, their Laws, lives, liberties, estates, properties, Religion, to bring Delinquents and ill Counselors to condign punishment, and rescue his seduced Majesty out of their hands and power, though he be personally present with them, to assist and countenance them in this unnatural destructive war?

And under correction (notwithstanding anything I ever yet heard or read to the contrary) I conceive affirmatively, that they may justly do it, both in point of Law and Conscience. I shall begin with Law, because in this unhappy controversy, it must direct the conscience.

First, I have already proved in Judgment of Law; the Parliament and Kingdom assembled in it, to be the Sovereign power, and of greater authority then the King, who is but their public Minister in point of civil Justice, and General in matters of war, as the Roman Kings and Emperors were, and other foreign Kings of old and at this day are. The Parliament then being the highest power, and having principal right and authority to denounce, conclude and proclaim war, (as I have manifested in the debate of the Militia, ) may not only lawfully resist, but oppugn, suppress all Forces raised against it, and the Kingdoms peace or welfare.

Secondly, the principal end of the Kingdoms, original erecting Parliaments, and investing them with supreme power at first, was, to defend not only with good Laws and Council, but when absolute necessity requires (as now it doth,) with open force of Arms; the Subjects Liberties, Persons, Estates, Religion, Laws, Lives, Rights, from the encroachments and violence of their Kings, and to keep Kings within due bounds of Law and Justice, the end of instituting the Senate and Ephori among the Lacaedemonians, the Senate and Dictators among the Romans, the Forum Suprarbiense, and Justitia Aragoniae among the Aragonians; of Parliaments, Dietts, and Assemblies of the estates in other foreign Kingdoms, and in Scotland, as I shall prove at large in its proper place. This is clear by the proceedings of all our Parliaments in former ages; Especially in King John's, Henry the third, Edward the 1. 2. 3. and Richard the seconds Raignes; by the latter Parliaments in King James his reign, yea of 3. Caroli, the last dissolved Parliament, and this now sitting, whose principal care and employment hath been to vindicate the Subjects Liberties, properties, laws, and Religion, from all illegal encroachments on them by the Crown and its ill Instruments: by the forecited resolutions of Bracton, Fleta, the Myrror of Justices, Vowell, Holinshed, the Council of Basel, and others, that the Parliament ought to restrain and bridle the king when he casts off the bridle of the Law, and invades the Subjects Liberties, especially with open force of Arms in an Hostile manner: and by the constant practice of our Ancestors and the Barons Wars, in maintenance of Magna Charta, with other good Laws and Privileges, confirmed by Parliament. If then the Parliament be instrusted by the Kingdom with this Superlative power, thus to protect the Subjects Liberties, properties, Laws, persons, Religion, &c. against the kings invasions on them by policy or violence: they should both betray their trust, yea the whole kingdom too, if they should not with open Force of Arms, (when Policy, Council, and Petitions will not do it) defend their own and the Subjects Liberties, persons, privileges, &c. against his Majesty's offensive Armies which invade them, intending to make the whole kingdom a present booty to their insaciable rapine, and a future vassal to his Majesty's absolute arbitrary power, by way of conquest.

I read in Bodin that the Roman Senate being no way able to restrain Caesar, took their refuge to that ancient Decree of the Senate, which was commonly made but in dangerous times of the Common-weal • . Videant Consules & caeteri Magistratus ne quid detrimenti capiat Respublica: Let the Consulls and other Magistrates fore see that the Common-weal take no harm. With which decree of the Senate, the Consulls being armed, suddenly raised their power, commanding Pompey to take up Arms and raise an Army against Caesar to oppose his violent proceedings by force who after his conquest of Pompey refusing to rise up to the Consulls, Pretors, and whole Senate, out of his pride, through his ill Counselors advise, and talking with them, as if they had been but private men, he so far offended both the Senate and people, that to free the Republic from his Tyranny, and preserve their hereditary Liberties, they conspired his death, and soon after murdered him in the Senate-house, where they gave him no less than 23. wounds. And Hieronimus Blanca assures us, that the Suprarbiense Forum, Iustitia Aragoniae, or States of Arag • n, (erected to withstand the tyranny and encroachments of their kings) may by the Laws of their Realm assemble together, and RESIST THEIR KING WITH FORCE OF ARMES, as oft as there shall be need to repulse his, or his Officers violence against the Laws;

Thirdly, Our own Parliaments, Prelates, Nobles, and Commons in all ages (especially in times of Popery) as well in Parliament, as out, have by open force of arms resisted, suppressed the oppressions, rapines, unjust violence, and armies of their Princes raised against them; Yea, encountered their Kings in open Battells, taken their persons Prisoners, and sometimes expelled, nay deposed them from their Royal authority, when they became incorrigible open professed enemies to their kingdoms, their Subjects, seeking the ruin, slavery, and desolation of those, whom by Office, Duty, Oath, and common Justice, they were bound inviolably to protect in Liberty and peace, as the premised Histories of Archigallo, Emerian, Vortigern, Segebert, Osred, Æthelred, Bernard, Edwin, Ceolwulfe, King John, Henry the 3 ^d. Edward 1. and 2. Richard the 2, Henry the 6 ^th . (our British, Saxon, English Kings, ) and other examples common in our own Annalls, plentifully manifest. Neither are their examples singular, but all Kingdoms generally throughout the world in all ages have done the like, when their Kings degenerated into Tyrants, of which there are infinite precedens in History: which actions all ages, all Kingdoms have always reputed lawful both in point of Policy, Law, Religion, as warranted by the very Laws of Nature, Reason, State, Nations, God; which instruct, not only particular persons, but whole Cities and Kingdoms for their own necessary defense, preservation, the supportation of human Society and Liberty, to protect themselves against all unlawful violence and Trranny, even of their Kings themselves, or their Ministers, to whom neither the Laws of God, Nature, Man, nor any civil Nation, ever yet gave the least authority to Murder, Spoile, Oppresse, enslave their Subjects, or deprive them of their lawful Liberties or Estates; which resistance were it unlawful or unjust (as many ignorant Royalists and Parasites now teach) some few oppressing tyrannizing willful Princes, might without the least resistance, ruin, murder, enslave the whole world of men; overthrow all settled forms of civil government, extirpate Christian Religion, and destroy all human Society at their pleasures; all which had been effected, yea, all States and Kingdoms totally subverted long ago, by ambitious Tyrannizing lawless Princes, had not this Lawfull, Natural, Hereditary power of resisting and opposing their illegal violence (inherent in their Parliaments, States, Kingdoms) restrained and suppressed their exorbitances of this kind. Now that this necessary Defensive opposition and resistance against open Regal Hostile violence, which hath been ever held lawful, and frequently practiced in all Kingdoms, all ages heretofore, as just and necessary; should become suddenly unlawful to our Parliament, and Kingdom only, at this instant, seems very unreasonable unto me.

Fouthly, It is the express resolution of Aristotle, Xenophon, Polibius, Pope Elutherius, (in his Epistle to our first Christian King, Lucius ) King Edward the Confessor in his established Laws, c. 17. the Council of Paris, Anno 829. and Isiodor cited by it; John Bodin, John Mariana, and generally of all foreign Divines and Politicians, Pagan or Christian; yea of Bracton, Fleta, Fortescue, and King James himself; that a King governing in a settled Kingdom, ceaseth to be a King, and degenerates into a Tyrant, so soon as he leaves to rule by his Laws; much more, when he begins to invade his Subjects, Persons, Rights, Liberties, to set up an Abitrary power; impose unlawful Taxes, raise Forces, and make War upon his Subjects, whom he should Protect, and rule in peace; to pillage, plunder, waste, and spoil his Kingdom; imprison, murder, and destroy his people in an hostile manner, to captivate them to his pleasure; the very highest degree of Tyranny, condemned and detested by God, and all good men. The whole State and Kingdom therefore in such cases as these, for their own just necessary preservation, may lawfully with force of Arms, when no other course can secure them, not only passively, but actively resist their Prince, in such his violent, exorbitant, tyrannical proceedings; without resisting any kingly, lawful royal Authority Vested in the Kings person, for the kingdoms preservation only, not destruction; because in, and as to these illegal oppressions, tyrannical actions, not warranted, but prohibited by the Laws of God, and the Realm, (to whom he is accountable, and by whom he is justly censurable for them ) he is no lawful King, nor Majestrate, but an unjust oppressing Tyrant, and a mere private man, who (as to these proceedings) hath quite denuded himself of his just Regal authority. So that all those wholesome Laws made by the whole State in Parliament, for the necessary preservation and defense of their Kings Royal Person, and lawful Sovereign power; the suppression of all Insurrections, Treasons, Conspiracies and open Wars against them, whiles they govern their people justly according to Law, (as all good Princes are obliged to do by oath and duty;) or the open violent resisting of their Lawfull authority and Commands; to which all Subjects both in point of Law and Conscience, ought cheerfully and readily to Submit; will yield no public Countenance, Encouragement, or Protection at all to Kings, in their irregall, tyrannical oppressions, or violent courses; especially when they turn professed public enemies to their people, proclaim open War against them, invade their Laws, Liberties, Goods, Houses, Persons, and exercise all acts of Hostilitie against them, as fatre forth as the most barbarous Forraigne Enemies would do: It being against all common sense and reason to conceive, that our Parliaments, Laws which strictly inhibit and punish the very smallest violations of the public peace, with all kinds of Oppressions, Robberies, Trespasses, Batteries, Assaults, Bloodsheds, Fraies, Murthers, Routs, Riots, Insurrections, Burglaries, Rapes, Plunderings, Force-able Entries, Invasions of the Subjects Liberties or Properties, in all other persons, and greatest public Officers whatsoever (whose Delinquences are so much the more heinous, execrable and censurable, as their persons, honors, and places are more eminent) should so far countenance, justify, or patronize them only in the King, the Supreame fountain of Justice ( ad tutelam Legis corporum & bonorum erectus, as Fortescue, and Sir Edward Cook resolve; Cujus Potestas Iuris est, & non Injuriae; & cum sit author Iuris, non debet inde injuriarum nasci occasio, unde Iura naseuntur, as Bracton, and Fleta determine;) as not to permit the Subjects, under pain of Rebellion and high Treason, by force of Arms, upon express command and direction of the whole Kingdom in Parliament, so much as to defend their Persons, Goods, Estates, Houses, Wives, Children, Liberties, Lives, Religion, against the open violence of the King himself, or his Malignant plundering, murthering Papists, Caveleers: When as Kings of all others (as Bracton, For escue, and Mariana prove at large) both by Oath and Duty, ought to be more observant of, and obedient to the Laws of God and their Realms ( which are no respectors of Persons ) then the very meanest of their Subjects. That Precept then of Paul, Rom. 13. 1. 2. 3. Let every Soul be subject to the higher Powers, &c. And the Statute of 25. E. 3. c. 2. with other obsolete Acts, which declare it High Treason, to levy War against the King in his Realm, must needs be intended of, and qualified with these subsequent just limitations, suitable to their genuine sense and meaning; to wit, That as long, and so far forth, as Kings justly and uprightly do execute their just Royal power, conferred on them by God and their people, according to the Law of God, and their Realms, to the Protection, encouragement and praise of all their good Subjects, and the deserved punishment only of Malefactors; they must and ought to be cheerfully obeyed, and quietly submitted to, as God's own Ministers, without the least resistance, private or public; neither ought any private men upon any private injuries, of their own authority to raise up in Arms against them, seeing they are public Magistrates in whom all the Kingdom have an interest, without the general assent and authority of the whole State and Kingdom, or of both Houses of Parliment which represents it. But if Kings degenerate into Tyrants, and turn professed enemies to their Kingdoms, Parliaments, People, by making open War against them; by spoiling, murthering, imprisoning, maiming, sacking, destroying, or putting them out of their Protections, without any just or lawful grounds, endeavoring by force of Arms to subvert their Laws, Liberties, Religion, and expose them as a prey to their merciless blood-thirsty Soldiers; or bring in Forraigne Forces to conquer them, (our present case;) I dare confidently aver, it was never the thought nor intention of Paul, or the Holy Ghost, much less of our Nobles, Prelates, and Commons in Parliament, which enacted these Laws (who so oft took up Arms, as well offensive, as defensive, against our Kings, in such like cases heretofore) to inhibit Subjects, Kingdoms, Parliaments (especially, by direct Votes and Ordinances of both Houses) under pain of damnation, high Treason, or Rebellion, by defensive Arms to resist Kings themselves, or any of their Cavaliers: and if this question had been put to Paul, Peter, or any of those Parliaments, which enacted these objected Laws; Whether they ever meant by these Precepts or Statutes, totally to prohibit all Subjects, by general assent in Parliament, to take up such defensive Arms, or make any forceable resistance, against their Kings or their Armies, in such cases of extremity and necessity as these, under the foresaid penalties? I make little question, but they would have clearly resolved; that it was never so much as within the compass of their thoughts, much less their plain intention, to prohibit such a resistance, in this or such like cases, but only according to the precedent exposition of their words; and that they never imagined to establish in the world any Vnresistable Lawlesse Tyranny, or any such spoil or butchery of Kingdoms, of Subjects, execrable to God and man, in all persons, all ages, which have resisted them even unto blood; but rather totally to suppress them; There being scarce anymore pregnant Text, against the Tyranny, the boundless Prerogatives, the illegal proceedings of Kings, and Higher Powers in all the Scripture, then that of Romans 13. 1. to 7. if rightly scanned, as Pareus, and others on it manifest. Therefore the Parliaments and people's present defensive War, and resistance against their seduced King, and his Malignant Popish Cavaliers, is no violation of any Law of God, of the Realm; but a just necessary War, which they have to the uttermost endeavored to prevent: and no Treason, no Rebellion at all within the meaning of any Law, or Statute, unless we should think our Parliaments so mad, as to declare it high Treason, or Rebellion, even for the Parliament and Kingdom it self, so much as to take up Arms for their own necessary preservation, to prevent their inevitable ruin, when they are openly assaulted by Royal armies; which none can ever presume they would do, being the very high way to their own, and the whole Kingdoms subversion.

Fifthly, admit the King should bring in Forraigne forces ( French, Spanish, Danes, Dutch, or Irish ) to destroy, or Conquer his Subjects, Parliament, Kingdom, (as some such forces are already landed, and more expected daily;) and should join himself personally with them in such a service, I think there is no Divine, Lawyer, or true hearted Englishman, so void of reason, or common understanding, as to affirm it Treason, or Rebellion in point of Law, and a matter of Damnation in Conscience, or true Divinity, for the Parliaments, Subjects, Kingdom, to take up necessary defensive arms for their own preservation in such a case, even against the King himself, and his army of Aliens; but would rather deem it a just, honorable, necessary action; yea, a duty, for every English man to venture his life, and all his fortunes, for the defense of his own dearest Native Country, Posterity, Liberty, Religion; and no less then a glorious Martyrdom, to die manfully in the Field, in such a public quarrel: the very Heathens generally resolving; that Dulce & decorum est pro Patria mori: Et mortes pro Patria appetitae, Non solum gloriosae Rhetoribus, sed etiam beatae videri solent: In a case of this quallitie. Whence that noble Roman Camillus, professed to all the Romans in a public Oration; Patriae deesse quoad vita suppetat, alijs turpe, Camillo etiam NEFAS EST. And is not there the self same equity, and reason, when the King shall raise an Army of Popish English, or Irish Rebels, Malignants, Delinquents, and bring in Foreigners (though yet in no great proporation) to effect the like design. If armed forceable resistance be no Treason, no Rebellion in Law or Conscience, in the first, it can be no such crime in our present case.

Sixthly, I would demand of any Lawyer, or Divine: What is the true genuine reason, that the taking up of offensive arms against, or offering violence to the person, or life of the King, is High Treason, in point of Law and Divinity? Is it not only because and as he is, the head and chief member of the Kingdom, which hath a Common interest in him; and because the Kingdom it self sustains a public prejudice and loss by this War against, and violence to his Person? Doubtless, every man must acknowledge this, to be the only reason; for if he were not such a public person, the levying War against, or murthering of him, could be no High. Treason at all. And this is the reason, why the elsewhere cited Statutes of our Realm, together with our Historians, make levying of War, deposing, or killing the King by private persons, High Treason; not only against the King, but the REALME, and Kingdom to; Witness the Statutes of 5. R. 2. c, 6. 11. R. 2. c. 1. 3. 6. 17 R. 2. c. 8. 21. R. 2. c. 2. 4. 20. 3. H. 5. Parl. 2. c. 6. 28. H. 8. c. 7. 1. Mar. c. 6. 13. Eliz. c. 1. 3. Iaco. 1. 2. 3. 4. and the Act of Pacification this present Parliament, (declaring those persons of England and Scotland TRAITORS TO EITHER REALME, who shall take up Arms against either Realm, without common consent of Parliament) which Enact, The levying of War against the Kingdom and Parliament, invading of England or Ireland, treachery against the Parliament, repealing of certain Acts of Parliament, ill Counselling the King, coining false Money, and offering violence to the Kings person, to take away his Life, to be high Treason, not only against the King and his Crown, but THE REALME TO; and those who are guilty of such crimes, to be High Traitors and Enemies TO THE REALME, as well at to the King. Hence John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, being accused in a Parliament held in 7. R. 2. by a Carmelite Frier, of High Treason, for practicing suddenly to surprise the KING, and seize upon his Kingdom; the Duke denied it, as a thing incredible upon this very ground; If I should thus (said he) affect the Kingdom: Js it credible after your murder (which God forbid) that the Lord's of this Kingdom, could patiently endure me, Domini mei ET PATRIAE PRODITOREM, being a Traitor both of my LORD and COUNTREY? Hence in the same Parliament of 7. R. 2. John Walsh Esquire Captain of Cherburg in France, was accused by one of Navarre, DE PRODITIONE REGIS & REGNI, Of Treason against the King and Kingdom; for delivering up that Castle to the Enemies; And in the Parliament of 3. R. 2. Sir John Annesley Knight, accused Thomas Ketrington Esquire, of Treason against the King and Realm, for betraying and selling the Castle of Saint Savior within the Isse of Constantine in France, to the French, for a great sum of money, when as he neither wanted Victuals, nor means to defend it: both which Accusations (being of Treasons beyond the Sea) were determined by Battle, and Duels fought to decide them. Hence the great Favorite, Pierce Gaveston, Tanquam Legum subversor, Hostis Terrae Publicus, & Publicus Regni Proditor, capite truncatus est: and the two Spensers after him, were in Edward the second his Rain likewise banished, condemned, and executed, as Traitors to the King and Realm, ET REGNI PRODITORES for miscounselling and seducing the King, and moving him to make War upon his people: Hence both the Pierces, and the Archbishop of York, in their Articles against King Henry the fourth, accused him, as guilty of High Treason, and a Traitor both to the King, Realm and Kingdom of England, for Deposing and murthering Richard the second. And hence the Gunpouder Conspirators, were declared, adjudged, and executed as Traitors both to the KING & REALME, for attempting to blow up the Parliament House, when the King, Nobles, and Commons were therein assembled: If then the King shall become an open enemy to his Kingdom, and Subjects, to waste or ruin them; or shall seek to betray them to a Forraigne Enemy (which hath been held no less then Treason in a King to do, who by the express resolution of 28. H. 8. cap. 7. may become a Traitor to the REALME, and thereupon forfeit his very right and title to the Crown; ) it can be no Treason nor Rebellion in Law or Theology, for the Parliament, Kingdom, Subjects, to take up arms against the King and his Forces, in such a case, when he shall willfully and maliciously rent himself from, and set himself in direct opposition against his Kingdom; and by his own voluntary actions turn their common interest in him for their good and protection, into a public engagement against him, as a common Enemy, who seeks their general ruin. And if Kings may lawfully take up arms against their Subjects, as all Royalists plead, after they reject their lawful power, and become open Rebels or Traitors, because then as to this, they cease to be Subjects any longer, and so forfeit the benefit of their Royal protection: By the self-same reason (the bond and stipulation being mutual; Kings being their Subjects Liege Lord's, by Oath and Duty, as well as they their Liege people: ) When Kings turn open professed Foes to their Subjects in an Hostile Warrelike way, they presently both in Law and Conscience, cease to be their Kings de jure, as to this particular, and their Subjects allegiance thereby is as to this discharged, and suspended towards them, as appears by the Kings Coronation Oath, and the Lord's and Prelates conditional Fealty to King Steven, so that they may justly in Law and Conscience resist their unlawful assaults, as enemies; for which they must only censure their own rash unjust proceedings, and breach of Faith to their People, not their Peoples just defensive opposition which themselves alone occasioned.

Seventhly, It must of necessity be granted; that for any King to levy war against his Subjects, unless upon very good grounds of Law and conscience, and in case of absolute necessity, when there is no other remedy left, is directly contrary to his very Oath and duty, witness the Law of King Edward the Confessor, cap. 17. and Coronation Oaths of all our Kings forementioned; To keep PEACE and godly agreement INTIRELY, ACCORDING TO THEIR POWER to their people; Contrary to all the fundamental Laws of the Realm, and the Prologues of most Statutes, entirely to preserve, and earnestly to endeavor the peace and welfare of their people's persons, goods, estates, laws, liberties; Contrary to the main tenor of all Sacred Scriptures, which have relation unto Kings; but more especially to the 1 Kings 12. 21. 23. 24. and 2 Chron. 11. 1. 2. Where when King Rehoboam had gathered a very great army to fight against the ten Tribes, (which revolted from him for following his young Counselors advice, and denying their just request, and crowned Jeroboam for their King) intending to reduce them to his obedience by force of arms; God by his Prophet Shemiah expressly prohibited him and his army, to go up, or fight against them; and made them all to return to their own houses without fighting; and to Isaiah 14. 4. 19. to 22. where God threatens, to cast the King of Babylon out of his grave, as an abhominable branch, as a carcass trodden underfoot, (mark the reason)

Yea, contrary to that memorable Speech of that noble Roman Valerius Corinus when he was chosen Dictator, and went to fight against the Roman conspirators, who toke up arms against their Country. Fugeris etiam honestius, tergumque civi dederis, quam pugnaveris contra patriam; nunc ad pacificandum been atque honest inter primos stabis: postulate aequa et ferte; quanquam vel iniquis standum est potius, quam impias inter nos conseramus manus, &c. If then a Kings offensive war upon his Subjects, without very just grounds and unevitable occasions be thus utterly sinful, and unlawful in law and Conscience; and most diametrally contrary to the Oath, Office, trust and duty of a King, (who by this strange metamorphosis becomes a Wolf instead of a Shepherd, a destroyer in lieu of a Protector; a public Enemy in place of a Common friend; an unnatural Tyrant, instead of a natural King ) it follows inevitably; that the Subjects or Kingdoms resistance and defensive war in such a case, both by the law of God, of nature, of the Realm, must be lawful, and just; because directly opposite to, the only preservative against that war, which is unlawful and unjust: and so no Treason, nor Rebellion (by any Law of God or man,) which are illegal and criminal too.

Eighthly, It is the received resolution of all Canoni •• s, Schoolmen, and Civil Lawyers; That a defensive war undertaken only for necessary defense, doth not prop • lie deserve the nam of war, but only of Defense: That it is no l • vying of war at all, (which implies an active offen • ive, not passive defensive raising of forces, and so no Treason nor offense within the statute of 25. E. 3. c. 2. as the Parliament, the only proper Judge of Treasons, hath already resolved in point of Law but a faculty only of defense Cuilibet Omni Iure, ipsoque Rationis Ductu Permissa; &c. permitted to everyone By all Law, (or right) and by the very conduct of reason, since to propulse violence and injury is permitted by the very Law of Nations. Hence of all the seven sorts of war which they make, they define the last to be, A just and Necessary War quod fit se et sua defendendo; and that those who d • e is such a war (caeteris paribus) are safe (Causa 23. qu. 1.) and if they be slain for defense of the Common-wealth, their memory shall live in perpetual glory. And hence they give this Definition of a just War. War is a Lawfull Defense against an imminent or praeceeding offense upon a public or private cause, concluding: That if Defense be severed from War, it is a Sedition, not War; Although the Emperor himself denounce it; Yea, although the whole World combined together. Proclaime it: For the Emperor, a King, can no more lawfully hurt another in War, then he can take away his goods or life without cause. Therefore let Commentato • s b • awle eternally about War, yet they shall never justify nor prove it lawful, Nisi ex Defensione Legitima; but when it proceeds from Lawfull defense, all Wars being rash and unjust, against those who justly defend themselves. This War then being undertaken by the Parliament, only for their own, and the Kingdoms necessary defense, against the Kings invasive Armies and Cavaliers (especially, now after the Kings rejection of all Honorable and safe terms of Peace and accommodation tendered to him by the Parliament:) must needs be just and lawful; and so no Treason, nor Rebellion, in point of Law or Conscience; Since no Law of God, nor of the Realm, hath given the King any Authority or Commission at all to make this unnatural War upon his Parliament, his people, to enslave their Souls and Bodies, or any inhibition to them, not to defend themselves in such a case.

These general Considerations thus premised, wherein Law and Conscience walk hand in hand; I shall in the next place lay down such particular grounds for the justification of this War, which are merely Legal; extracted out of the bowels of our known Laws; which no professors of them can contradict.

First, it is unquestionable, that by the Common and Statute Law of the Land, the King himself, who cannot lawfully proclaim War against a Forraigne Enemy, much less against his people, without his Parliaments previous assent, as I have elsewhere proved; cannot by his absolute Sovereign Prerogative, either by verbal Commands, or Commissions under the great Seal of England, derive any lawful or just Authority to any General, Captain, Cavaliers, or person whatsoever, without Legal Trial and Conviction, to seize the Goods or Chattels of any his Subjects, much less, forcecibly to Rob, Spoile, Plunder, Wound, Beat, Kill, Imprison, or make open War upon them, without a most just and in vitable occasion, and that after open kostilitij denounced against them. And if any by virtue of such illegal Commissions or Mandats, Assault, Plunder, Spoile, Rob, Beat, Wound, Slay, Imprison, the Goods, Chattels, Houses, Persons of any Subject not lawfully convicted; They may, and ought to be proceeded against, resisted, apprehended, indicted condemned for it, notwithstanding such Commissions as Trespassers, Thieves, Burglarers, Felons, Murderers, both by Statute, and Common Law; As is clearly enacted and resolved, by Magna Charta, cap. 29. 15. E. 3. Stat. 1. cap. 1. 2. 3. 42. E. 3. cap. 1. 3. 28. E. 1. Artic. super Chartas, cap. 2. 4 E. 3. c. 4. 5. E. 3. cap. 2. 24. E. 3. cap. 1. 2 R. 2 cap. 7. 5 R. 2 ca 5. 1. H. 5. cap. 6. 11. R. 2. cap. 1. to 6. 24 H. 8. cap. 5. 21. Jacob. c. 3. Against Monopolies. The Petition of Right. 3. Caroli 2. E. 3. c. 8. 14. E. 3. ca. 14. 18. E. 3. Stat. 3. 20. E. 3. cap. 1. 2. 3. 1. R 2. cap. 2. And generally all Statutes against Purveyers 42. Ass. Pl. 5. 12. Brooke Commissions, 15. 16. Fortesoue, c p. 8. 9. 10. 13. 14. 26. 1. E. 3. 2. 2. H. 4. 24. Br. Faux Jmprisonment, 30. 28. 22. E. 4 45. a Tr. 16. H. 6. Monstrans de Faits 182 Stamford lib. 1. fol. 13. a. 37. a. The Conference at the Committies of both Houses, 3 ^o. Aprilis, 4 ^o. Caroli, concerning the Right and Privilege of the Subject: newly Printed. Cook lib. 5. fol. 50. 51. lib. 7. fol. 36. 37. lib. 8. fol. 125. to 129. Judge Crooks and Huttons Arguments, against Shipmoney, with divers other Law-Books. Therefore the Cavaliers can no ways justify, nor excuse their Wounding, Murthering, Imprisoning, Assaulting, Robbing, Pillaging, and spoiling of his Majesty's people and Subjects, and making War upon them, by virtue of any Warrant or Commission from the King; but may justly and legally be apprehended, resisted, and proceeded against, as Murderers, Rebels, Robbers, Felons, notwithstanding any pretended Royal Authority to countenance their execrable unnatural proceedings.

Secondly, It is irrefragable, that the Subjects in defense of their own Persons, Houses, Goods, Wives, Families, against such as violently assault them by open force of Arms, to wound, slay, beat, imprison, rob, or plunder them, (though by the Kings own illegal Commission) may not only lawfully arm themselves, and fortify their houses (their Castles in Judgment of Law,) against them; but refist, apprehend, disarm, beat, wound, repulse, kill them in their just necessary defense; not only without guilt of Treason, or Rebellion, but of Tresspas, or the very least offense; And Servants in such Cases may lawfully justify, not only the beating, but killing of such persons, who assault their Masters persons, goods, or houses; as is expressly resolved by the Statute of 21. E. 1. De malefactoribus in Parcis; By 24. H. 8. cap. 5. Fitzherbert, Corone, 192. 194. 246. 258. 261. 330. 21. H. 7 39. Trespas, 246. Stamford, lib. 1. cap. 5. 6. 7. 22. Ass. 46. 11. H. 6. 16. a. 14. H. 6. 24. b. 35. H. 6. 51. a. 9. E. 4. 48. b. 12. E. 4. 6. a. 12. H. 8. 2. b. Brooke, Coron 63. & Trispas 217. Therefore they may justly defend themselves, resist, oppose, apprehend, and kill his Majesty's Cavaliers, notwithstanding any Commissions, and make a defensive War against them; when as they assault their persons, houses, goods, or habitations, without any Treason, Rebellion, or Crime all against the King or Law.

Thirdly, It is past dispute,

All which is Enacted and Resolved by 19. E. 3. cap. 38. 3. Ed. 1. cap. 5. 2. R. 2. cap. 6. 5. R. 2. cap. 5. 6. 7. R: 2. cap. 6. 17. R. 2. cap. 8. 13. H. 4. cap, 7. 1. H. 5. cap. 6. 2. H. 5. cap. 6. 8. 19. H. 7. cap. 13. 3. E. 6. cap. 5. 1. Mar. cap. 12. 31. H. 6. cap. 2. 19. E. 2. Fitz Execution, 247. 8. H. 4. 19. a 22. Ass. 55. 3. H. 7. fol. 1. 10. 5. H. 7. fol. 4. Register, f • 59. 60. 61. Fitz. Coron. 261. 288. 289. 328. 346. Stamford, lib. 1. cap. 5. 6. Cook lib. 5. fol. 92. 9. 3. with sundry other Books, and Acts of Parliament, and Walsingham, Hist. Angliae, pag. 283. 284. Yea, the Statute of 13. Ed. 1. cap. 38. recites; That such resistance of Processe out of any the Kings Courts (much more then out of the Highest Court of Parliament) redounds much to the dishonor of the King and his Crown; and that such resisters shall be imprisoned and fined, because they are desturbers of the Kings Peace, and of his Realm. And the expired Statute of 31. H. 6. cap. 2. Enacted: That if any Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount, or Baron, complained of for any great Riots, Extortions, Oppressio • s, or any offense by them done against the Peace and Laws, to any of the Kings Liege-people, should refuse to obey the Processe of he Kings Court, under his Great or-privy Seal, to him directed, to answer his said offenes; either by refusing to receive the said Processe, or dispiting it, on withdrawing himself f • r that cause, and not appearing after Proclamation made by the Sheriff in the County, at the day prescribed by the Proclamation; that then he should for this his contempt, forfeit and lose all his Offices, Fees, Annuities, and other Possessions that he, or any man to his use, hath of the gift or grant of the King, or any of his Progenitors, made to him or any of his Ancestors: And in case he appears not upon the second Proclamation on the day-therein to him limited; that then he shall lose and forfeit his Estate and place in Parliament, and also All the Lands and Tenements wh • ch he hath, or any other to his use for term of his life, and all other persons having no Lands not appearing after Proclamation, were to be put out of the Kings Protection, by this Act. Such a hemous offense was it then reputed, to disobey the Processe of Chancery, and other inferior Courts of Justice even in the greatest Peers; how much greater crime then is, and must it be, contemptuously to disobey the Summons, Processe, and Officers of the Parliament it self, the supremest Court of Judicature, especially in those who are Members of it, and stand engaged by their Prostestations, trusts, and Places in it, to maintain its honor, power, and privileges to the uttermost? which many of them now exceedingly vilify, and trample under feet: and therefore deserve a severer censure then this statute inflicts; even such as the Act of 21. R. 2. c. 6. prescribed to those Nobles unjustly fore-judged in that Parliament; That their issues males now begotten shall not come to the Parliaments, nor to the Councils of the King nor his heirs; nor be of the Kings Counsel nor of his heirs; Therefore it is undubitable, that the Sherifes, Justices of Peace, Majors, Constables, Leivtenantes, Captains, and other Officers in every County through the Realm, may by their own Authority (much more by an Ordinance and Act of association of both houses) raise all the power of the County, & all the people by virtue of such commands may lawfully meet together in Arms to suppress the riots, burglaries, rapines, plunders, butcheries, spoiling, robberies, and armed violence of his Majesty's Cavaliers; and apprehend, imprison, slay, arraign, execute them as common enemies to the kingdoms peace and welfare, even by the known Common Law, and Statutes of the Realm, and seife Delinquents notwithstanding any royal Commission or personal commands they may or can produce.

Fourthly, it is most certain, that every Subject by the very Common Law of the Realm, (yea Law of Nature) as he is a member of the State and Church of England, is bound both in duty and conscience, when there is necessary occasion, to Array and Arm himself to resist the invasions, and assaults of open enemies of the Realm, especially of Foreigners, as is clear by infinite * Presidents, cited by the Kings own Council, and recited by Judge Crooke in his Argument concerning Ship-money; in both the Houses two Remonstrances and Declarations against the Commission of Array; and the Answer of the first of them in the Kings name; all newly Printed (to which I shall refer the Reader for fuller Satisfaction:) and by the express statutes of 1 E. 3. c. 5. 25. E. 3. c. 8. and 4. H. 4. c. 13. The reason is from the Original compact and mutual stipulation of every member of any Republic, State or Society of men for mutual defense one of another upon all occasions of invasion, made at their first association and incorporation into a Republic, state, kingdom, Nation, of which we have a pregnant example, Judge. 20. 1. to 48. If then the King himself shall introduce foreign Forces and enemies into his Realm to levy war against it, or shall himself become an open enemy to it; the Subjects are obleiged, by the self-same reason, law, equity, especially upon the Parliaments command, to Arm themselves to defend their Native Country, Kingdom against these foreign and domestic Forces, and the King himself if he join with them; as far forth as they are bound to do it upon the Kings own Writ and Commission, in case he joined with the Parliament and Kingdom against them; the necessary defense and preservation of the Kingdom and themselves (and of the King only so far forth as he shows himself a King and Patron, not an enemy of his Kingdom, and Subjects,) being the sole ground of their engagement in such defensive wars: according to this notable resolution of Cicero, Omnium Societatum nulla est gratior, nulla carior quàm ea quae cum Republica est unicuique nostrum Cari sunt pare • tes, cariliberi, propinqui, familiares, SED OMNES OMNIVM CARITATES PATRIA VNA COMPLEXA EST, pro qua quis bonus dubit t • mortem oppetere, si ei sit prosuturus? Q • o est detestabilior illorum immanitas. qui lacerant omni scelere Patriam, & n • a sunditus delenda occupati & sunt & fuerunt: and seeing kings themselves as well as Subjects are bound to hazard their lives for the preservation of their Kingdoms, and people's safeti; and not to endanger the ruin of the Kingdom and people to preserve their own lives and prerogatives, as I have elsewhere manifested; it cannot be denied, but that every Subject, when the King is unjustly divided against his Kingdom, Parliament, and People, is mere obleiged to join with the kingdom, Parliament, and his Native dearest Country, (who are most considerable) against the King; than with the king against their; and rather in such a case than any other, because there is less need of help, and no such danger of ruin to the whole Realm and Nation, when the King joins with them against foreign invading enemies; as there is when the king himself becomes an open intestine Foe unto them, against his Oath and Daty: and the Peoples safety being the Supremest Law, & the Houses of Parliament the most Sovereign Authority, they ought in such unhappy cases of extremity and division to oversway all Subjects, to contribute their best assistance for their necessary just defense, even against the king himself and all his Partisans, who take up Hostile Arms against them, and not to assist them to ruin their own Country, Kingdom, Nation, as many as now over-rashly do.

Fifthly, I conceive it clear Law, that if the King himself, or his Courtiers with him, shall wrongfully assault any of his Subjects to wound, rob, or murder them without just cause, that the subjects, without any guilt of Treason or Rebellion, may not only in their own defense resist the King and his Courtiers assaults in such a case, and hold their hands (as Doctor Ferne himself accords) but likewise close with, and disarm them; and if the King or his Courtiers receive any blows, wounds, in such a case; or be casually slain, it is neither Treason nor Murder, in the Defendants, who had no Treasonable nor murderous intention at all in them, but only endeavored their own just defense, attempting nothing at all against the kings lawful Royal authority: as is clear by all Law Cases, of man slaughter, se defendends, and to put this out of question, I shall cite but two or three cases of like Nature. It hath been very frequent with the Kings of England, France, and other Princes, for trial of their man hood, to run at Iousts and fight at Barriers, not only with foreigners, but with their own valiantest L • rds and Knights, of which there are various Examples. In these Martial disports, by the very Law of Arm • s, these Subjects have not only defended themselves against their kings assaults and blows; but retorted lance for lance, stroke for stroke, and sometimes unborsed, disarmed, and wounded their Kings, our King Henry the eight, being like to be slain by the Earl of Suffolk, at a Tilting in the 16. year of his reign: and no longer since then the year 1559. Henry the 2 ^d , King of France, was casually slain in a loust by the Earl of Mountgommery, his Subject, (whom he commanded to Just one bout more with him against his will) whose Spear in the counter-blow ran so right into one of the Kings eyes, that the shivers of it pierced into his head, perished his brain and slew him: yet this was Iudged no Treason, Fellony, nor offense at all in the Earl, who had no ill intention. If then it hath ever been reputed lawful and honorable, for Subjects in such military exercises, upon the challenges of their kings, to defend themselves courageously against their assaults, and thus to fight with and encounter them in a martial manner, though there were no necessity for them to answer such a challenge; and the casual wounding or slaying of the King by a Subject in such a case be neither Treason nor Fellony: then much more must it be lawful by the Law of Arms, Nature, and the kingdom, for the Parliament and subjects in a necessary, just, unavoidable war, to defend, resist, repulse the kings and his Cavaliers-personal assaults, and return them blow forblow, shot for shot, if they will willfully invade them; and if the king or any of his Forces miscarry in this action, they must (like King Henry the 8 ^th when endangered by tilting) blame themselves alo • e, and have no other just legal remedy but patience, it being neither Treason, Rebellion, nor Murder in the defensive party, and most desperate folly and frenzy in any Prince, to engage himself in such a danger, when beneede not do it. I read of Charles the first of France; that he fell suddenly destracted upon a message he rec • ived from an old poor man, as he was marching in the head of his Army; and thereupon thinking himself b • tray • d encountered his own men, and slew two or three of them ere they were ware of him, woe • nding others. Whereupon they closing with him, dis • rmed and led him away fo • ceably, keeping him close shut up like à Bedla • , till he recovered his sense • s. I think no man in his right wits, will deem this their action Treasonable or unlawful; neither did the king or any in that age thus repute it. If then a King in an angry frantic passion (for Ir. brevius furor est; ) shall take up Arms against his loyal Subjects, and assault their persons to murder them and spoil their goods; if they (by common consent in Parliament especially) shall forcibly resist, disarm or restrain his person, till his fury be appeased, and his judgment rectified by better councils; shall this be Treason, Rebellion, or Disloyaltie? God forbid: I think none but mad men can or will averte it. It was a great doubt in Law, till the statute of 33. H. 8. c. 20. settled it, If a party that had committed any high Treasons when he was of perfect memory; after accusation, examination, and confession thereof became mad or lunatic; whether he should b • tried and condemned for it during this distemper? And some from that very act (and 21. H. 7. 31. 36. Ass 27. 12. H. 3. For faiture 33 and Dower 183. Fitz. Nat. Br. 202. D. Stamford Pleas, 16. b. and Cook. l. 4. f. 124. Beverlyes case, which resolve, • hat a Lunaticke or Non Compos cannot be guilty of murthe • , fell n • y, •• petite Treason, because having no understanding, and knowing not what he doth, he can • ave n • follonius intention ) conceive, that a real mad-man cannot be guilty of high Treason (though Sir Edward Cook in Bev • rlies case, be of a contrary opinion) if he should assault or kill his king. And I suppose few will deem Walter Terrils casual killing of King William Rufus with the glance of his arrow from a tree, shot at a Deere, high Treason; neither was it then reputed so, or he prosecuted as a Traitor for it, because he had no malicious intention (as most think) against the King, or any thought to hurt him. But I conceive it out of question, if a king in a distracted furious passion without just cause, shall invade his subjects persons in an open hostile manner to destroy them; it neither is, nor can be Treason ner Rebellion in them, if in their own necessary defense alone, they shall either casually wound or slay him contrary to their loyal intentions; and those Statutes and Law-book • s which judge it high Treason, for any one maliciously and traitorously to imagine, compass or conspire the death of the King; will not at all extend to such a case of mere just defense; since a conspiracy or imagination to compass or procure the Kings death, can neither be justly imagined nor presumed, in those who are but merely defensive, no more then in other common cases of one man's killing another in his own inevitable defense without any precedent malice; in which a Pardon by Law, is granted of course: however, questionless it is no Treason nor murder at all to slay any of the kings soldiers and Cavaliers who are no kings, in such a defensive war.

Sixthly, suppose the King should be captivated, or violently led away by any foreign or domestic enemies to him and the kingdom, and carried along with them in the field, to countenance their wars and invasions upon his loyallest Subjects, by illegal warrants or Commissions fraudulently procured, or extorted from him. If the Parliament and Kingdom in such a case, should raise an Army to rescue the King out of their hands, and to that end encountering the enemies, should casually wound the King whiles they out of loyalty sought only to rescue him; I would demand of any Lawyer or Divine, whether this Act should be deemed Treason, Rebellion or Disloyalty in the Parliament or army? Or which of the two Armies should in point of Law or Conscience be reputed Rebells or Traitors in this case? those that come only to rescue the King, and so fight really for him indeed, though against him in show; and wound him in the rescue? Or those who in show only fought for him, that they might still detain him captive to their wills? Doubtless there is no Lawyer, nor Theologue but would presently resolve in such a case, that the Parliaments Army which fought only to rescue the King were the loyal Subjects; and the Malignants army who held him captive with them, the only Rebels and traitors; and that the casual wounding of him (proceeding not out of any malicious intention, but love and loyalty to redeem him from captivity,) were no trespass nor offense at all, being quite besides their thoughts: and for a direct president; It was the very case of King Henry the third; who (together with his son Prince Edward ) being taken Prisoner by the Earl of Leycester in the battle of Lewis, and the Earl afterwards carrying him about in his Company in nature of a Prisoner, to countenance his actions, to the great discontent of the Prince, the Earl of Gloucester and other Nobles; hereupon the Prince and they raising an Army, encountered the Earl, and his Porces in a battle at Evesha • where the King was personally present, slew the Earl, Routed his Army, and rescued the king; in this cruel battle, the king himself (being wounded unawares with a Iavelin, by those who rescued him) was almost slain, and lost much of his blood: yet in a Parliament soon after summoned at Winchester, Anno 1266. the Earl and his Army were dis-inherited as Traitors and Rebels; but those who rescued them though with danger to his person, rewarded as his loyal subjects. And is not this the present case? A company of malignant ill Counselors, Delinquents, Prelates, Papists, have withdrawn his Majesty from his Parliament, raised an Army of Papists, Foreigners, Delinquents and Male-contents, to ruin the Parliament, Kingdom, Religion, Laws, Liberties; to countenance this their design, they detain his Majesty with them, and engage him all they can on their side: the Parliament out of no disloyal intention, but only to rescue his Majesty's person out of their hands, to apprehend delinquents, preserve the Kingdom from spoil, and defend their Privileges, Persons, Liberties, estates, religion, from unjust invasions, have raised a defensive Army, which encountered these Forces at Edgehill, (where they say the King was present) slew the Lord General (Earl of Lindsey ) with many others; and as they never intended, so they offered no kind of hurt or violence at all to his Majesty's person then or since; and now full sore against their wills, Petitions, endeavors for peace, they are necessitated to continue this offensive war, for their own and the Kingdoms necessary preservation. The sole question is; Whether this Act, this Defensive War of the Parliament and their Forces be high Treason or Rebellion? and who are the Traitors and Rebells in this case? Certainly, if I understand any Law or Reason, the Parliament and their Forces are and must be innocent from these crimes; and their opposite Popish Malignant Cavaliers, the only Rebels and Traitors; as this Parliament (the only proper Judge of Treasons) hath already voted and declared them in point of Law.

Seventhly, it is Little • s and other Law-books express resolutions; That if a man grant to another the Office of a Parkership, of a Park for life, the estate which he hath is upon condition in Law (though not expressed) that he shall well and lawfully keep the Park, and do what which to his Office belongeth to do, or otherwise it shall be lawful for the grantor and his heirs to remove him, and grant it to another if he will: and if the Parker negligently suffer the Deere to be killed, or kill the Deere himself without sufficient warrant from his Lord, it is a direct forfeiture of his Office. If then a Keeper or Forrester cannot kill or negligently suffer his Deere to be killed (no nor yet destroy the vert on which they should feed, or suffer it to be destroyed) without forfeiture of his Office, even by a condition annexed to his Office by the very Common Law; shall a King, think you, lawfully murder, plunder and destroy his Subjects, his kingdom, without any forfeiture or resistance at all? or will the Common Law of the Land in such a case which provides and annexeth a condition to the Office of a Parker, not much more unite it to the royal Office of a King, (who is but a regal Keeper, or shepherd of men, of Christians, of free men, not of slaves) for the Subjects preservation and security? Doth the Common-Law thus provide for the safety, the Liberty, welfare of our beasts, yea our wild beasts, are our Deere so dear unto it, and will it not much more provide for the security of our own persons, Lives, Liberties, estates? shall not these be dearer to it than out Deere? How many riged Laws have been anciently, and of late years made, against the killing, the destroying of the kings, the Subjects Deere in Forrests and Parkes, for which some have lost their Liberties, Lives, members? And shall not the Laws for the preservation of the Subjects Lives, Liberties, estates be more inviolably observed, more severely prosecuted? May a Forrester, Warrener, or Keeper of a Park lawfully beat and kill another in defense of his Deere and other game, without any penalty or forfeiture at all, enjoying the Kings Peace as before this fact, by the express statute of 21. E. 1. Rastall Forrests 19. and Stamfords Pleas, l. 1. c. 5. 6. And cannot a poor subject defend his own person, family, house, goods, Liberty, life, against the kings Forces, or Cavaliers without the danger of Treason or Rebellion, if the king himself be present with them, or they come armed with his unjust Commission? Certainly this is a too absurd, irrational, bestial opinion for any to believe. It is our Savior's own doubled argument, Mat. 6. 26. Luke 12. 24. Behold the fowls of the air, and consider the Ravens, for they neither sow nor reap, neither have storehouse, nor borne, yet your heavenly Father feedeth them: ARE NOT YEE MVCH BETTER THEN THEY? THEN FOWLES? And Luke 12. 6. 7. Mat. 10. 29. 30. 31. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and not one of them shall fall to the ground without your Father: But the very hairs of your head are all numbered: Fear ye not therefore; YE ARE OF MORE VALVE THEN MANY SPARROWES And the Apostle hath the like argument, 1 Cor. 9. 9. 10. Doth God take care for Oxen? Or saith he it not altogether for our sakes? for our sakes, NO DOUBT THIS IS WRITTEN, &c. Men are the Sovereign Lord's of all the Creatures, of far more excellency and dignity then all, or any of them; especially Christian men; whence the Apostle Paul gives this strict charge to the Elders of Ephesus (belonging as well to kings as Ministers) Act. 20. 28. Take heed therefore unto all the flock over which the holy Ghost hath made you over-seers to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood: and God himself hath given this express inhibition even to Kings themselves, concerning his and their people's safety (most strangely inverted by flattering Divines, quite contrary to the words and meaning:) Touch not mine anointed, and do my Prophets no harm?. And shall not men then made after God's own Image; men redeemed and purchased by the blood of Christ; men made Kings and Priests to God their Father, whom God himself hath expressly prohibited Kings themselves to touch or harm; not be allowed liberty to defend their persons, houses, lives, liberties, without offense or Treason, against Kings or any their Cavaliers assaults, by the Law of God, the Common or statute Law of the Realm; when as their very Keepers, Warreners, Forresters may lawfully resist, and slay them to without crime or punishment, if they should offer but to kill, to steal their Deere or Connies? Are they not much better, much dearer to God, to Kings, then fowls? then Sparrowes? then Oxen? then Deere? and their lives, their blood more precious then theirs? surely the Scripture is express: that precious in the sight of the Lord is the blood, the death of his Saints; and therefore he that sheddeth man's blood (be he whom he will in an unlawful way) by man shall his blood he shed; if not in a judicial way, yet by way of just defense, as Christ himself expounds it, Mat. 26. 52. ALL they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword: and Rev. 10. 10. He that killeth with the sword, MVST BE KILLED WITH THE SWORD; (no doubt he may be killed by way of necessary defense;) then it immediately follows; here is the patience and faith of the Saints: that is, Saints will and must patiently endure many pressures and wrongs from Tyrants and oppressors without resistance, but if they once come to make war with them, as the seven headed beast there did v. 7. then both the faith and patience of the Saints themselves will bind their hands no longer, but give them free liberty in such an extremity (for their own and the Churches preservation, in their just defense) to slay those seven headed beasts that shall assault them; the very faith of Christ then teacheth them no other lesson but this: he that leadeth into captivity shall go in o captitivitie, and he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword: and in such a case, God saith, Psal. 149. 6. 7. 8. 9. Let a two edged sword be in their hands, to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishment upon the people: to bi • de their Kings with chains and their Nobles with fetters of Iron; to execute upon them the judge • meant written: This honor (this privilege in such cases) HAVE ALL THE SAINTS, Praise ye the Lord. And very good reason is there for it. For as Nature it self hath instructed Lions, Bears, Wolves, Boars, Stagges, Backes, and most other beasts, not only to defend themselves against the violence of one another, but even of Men their supreme Lord's, when they assault and hunt them to take away their lives, over which God hath given men a lawful power: much more then may men by natures dictate, defend their persons, lives against the unlawful violence of their kings or Armies (over which God hath given them no power at all but in a legal way of justice for capital offenses) when they assault or make war upon them to destroy them. Not to trouble you with Histories of Stagges and other beasts which have killed men that chased them, in their own defense, of which there are infinite examples in the Roman and Spanish Histories, in those Amphithreatricall sports and spectacles wherein men encountered and fought with Lions, Tigers. Bears, Bulls and other savage Beasts; I shall only recite some few examples even of Kings themselves, who have been slain and devoured by such beasts as they have chased: Mada • King of Britain (as Polycronicon, Fabien, Grafton and others record) being in his disport of hunting, was slain of the wild beasts he pursued, when he had reigned 40. years: so was his son King Memphis slain and destroyed in hunting in the same manner. Merindus King of Britain, was devoured by a Sea monster which he encountered: and Basilius the 35 Emperor of Constantinople hunting a Stag, of an extraordinary greatness, and thinking to cut off his neck with his sword; the Stag ran fiercely at him, gored him with his horns on which he tossed him, bruised his entralls, whereof he died some few days after, and had been slain immediately, on the beasts horns, had not one there present drawn his sword and cut off his girdle, by which he hung on the horns, to whom he gave a very ill requital for this loyal service: other stories of kings sla • ne by beasts in their own defense occure in story, and examples of kings slain by men in and for their preservation, are almost innumerable: that of our king Edmond is observable among others, who as our Historians write being at a feast at Pulkers Church on Saint Augustine's day, espied a these named Leof, whom he had formerly banished, sitting in the Hall, whereupon he leapt over the Table, assaulted Leof, and plucked him by the hair of the head to the ground; who in his own defense, wounded the king to death with a knife, hurt many of his servants, and at length was himself hewn all in pieces. But that of our King Richard the 1. is more remarkable, who being shot in the arm with a barbed Arrow by one Peter Basil, (or Bertram Gurdon as others name him) at the siege of Chaluz Castle in Aquitain which rebelled against him; the Castle being taken, and the king ready to die of the wound, commanded the person that shot him to be brought into his presence, of whom he demanded, What hurt • e had done him that provoked him to this mischief? To whom he boldly replied: Thou hast killed my father and my two Brothers, with thine own hand; and now wouldest have slain me: take what revenge thou wilt; I shall willingly endure what ever torture thou canst inflict upon me, in respect I have slain thee, who hast done such and so great mischief to the world. The king hearing this his magnanimous answer, released him from his bonds, (though he slew the rest) and not only forgave him his death, but commanded an hundred shillings to be given him. If then brutes by the very law of Nature have thus defended themselves against kings, who have violently assaulted them, even to the casual death of the assailants: Why men by the selfsame Law, may not justly defend themselves against the unjust assailing wars of their Princes, and Armies, without Treason or Rebellion, exceeds my shallow understanding to apprehend: and I doubt those very persons who now plead most against it, only to accomplish their own pernicious designs, would make no scruple of such a necessary defensive wars and resistances lawfulness, were the case but really their own; and those Papists and Cavalieers who now take up arms against the Parliament, the supremest lawful power in the Realm, and their own native Country, without check of Conscience, would doubtless make no bones at all forcibly to resist or fight against the King himself, should he but really join with the Parliaments Army, against them and their designs; there being never any Soldier or Politician, but those only who were truly sanctified and religious, that made any conscience of fighting against, yea murthering of his natural king, not only in a lawful defensive war, but in a Trayterous and Rebellious manner too, if he might thereby advantage or promote his own particular interests, as is evident by the council and speech of David's soldiers, and King Saul himself. 1 Sam. 24. 4. 5. 6. 7. 18. 19. 21. by the words of Abishai, to David, 1 Sam. 28. 8. 9. 23. 24. by the Council of A •• itophell, which pleased Absalom, and all the Elders of Israel well, 2 Sam 17. 1. 2. 3. 4 and the infinite number of Emperors, of Kings, which have been traitorously, and rebelliously slain, without any just occasion by their own Soldiers, and that in a mere offensive, not defensive way; above half the Roman, Grecian, and German Emperors dying of such assassinations, or poysonings, very few of them of mere natural deaths, as the Histories of their lives declare.

Eighthly, It is in a manner agreed by Historians, Politicians, and Divines, that if a King will desert the defense and Protection of his people in times of war and danger, and neither aid nor protect them against their enemies according to his Oath and Duty, they may in such a case of extremity, for their own necessary defense and preservation, desert him, who deserteth them, and elect another King, who can and will protect them from utter ruin. Upon this very ground the Brittons of this Nation after many hundred years subjection to the Roman Emperors, rejected their yoke and government, when they refused and neglected to defend them against the barbarous Picts and others, who invaded them, when they had oft craved their assistance; electing them other Patriots: So the Spaniards being deserted by the Roman Emperors and left as a prey to their enemies, abandoned their government, and elected them Kings of their own to protect them, which they justified to be lawful for them to do. And in like manner the Romans and Italians being forsaken of the Emperor Constantine, when they were invaded by Aistulfus King of the Lumbards; Elected Charles the Great for their Emperor, and created a new Empire in the West, distinct from that of Constantinople in the East, which Bishop Bilson himself concludes they might lawfully do, in point of conscience. So Childerick being unfit to govern, and unable to repulse the enemies of the French which invaded his territories; thereupon by the advise of Pope Zacharias, and of a whole Synod and Parliament in France, they deposed Childericke, and elected Pipin for their King, who was both able and willing to protect them; Upon this very ground the Emperors Charles the third, and Wenceslius were deposed, as being unable and unfit to defend and govern the Empire, and others elected Emperors in their steeds, Thus Mahomet the blind, King of Granado, was in the year 1309. deposed by his own Brother, Nobles, and Subjects, who were discontented to be governed by a blind King, who could not lead them to the wars in person. And Ethodius the 2 ^d king of Scotland, being dull of wit, given to avarice, and nothing meet to govern the Realm; thereupon the Nobles took upon them the government, appointing Rulers in every Province, & so continued them all his reign, leaving him nothing but the bare title of a King, (not depriving him thereof, out of the respect they gave to the family of Fergusius ) but yet taking away all his regal power. And not to multiply cases or examples of this nature: Andrew Favine in his Theatre of Honor, out of the Chronicle of Laureshe • m and Aimonius in his 4 ^th Book of the History of France, relates a notable resolution given by the Parliament & Estates of France in this very point. In the year 803. Louis the Debonnaire king of France holding his Parliament in May; there came thither from strange Provinces two Brethren, kings of Vuilses, who with frank & free good will submitted themselves to the judgment of the said Parliament, to which of them the kingdom should belong. The elder of these two brethren was named Meligastus, and the younger Celeadraus, Now albeit the custom of the said kingdom, adjudged the Crown to the eldest, according to the right of Primegeniture, allowed and practiced by the Law of Nature, and of later memory, in the person of the last dead King Liubus, father to the two contendants; yet notwithstanding in regard that the Subjects by universal consent of the kingdom, had rejected the elder brother FOR HIS COWARDISE AND EVILL GOVERNMENT ( cum secundam ritum ejus gentis commissum sibi Regnum parum digne administraret ) and had given the Crown to the younger brother FOR HIS VALOVR & DISCREETE CARRIGE; after full hearing of both parties, BY SENTENCE of PARLIAMENT, the Kingdom was adjudged to the younger Brother, ( stat • it ut junior frater delatam sibi à Populo suo pot flatem haberet, &c ) and thereupon the eldest did him homage, with oath of Alleigance in the said Parliament, and submitted to this sentence. And upon this very ground in some of our ancient British and Saxons Kings Reignes when the right heir to the Crown was an infant, unable to defend his kingdom and people against invading enemies, the Crown hath commonly descended to the Uncle or next heir of full age, who was able to protect them and repulse their enemies, till the right heir accomplished his complete age, as I have elsewhere manifested. If then a Kingdom by general consent; may elect a new King to defend and preserve it, in case of invasion and eminent danger of ruin by foreign enemies, when their present King either cannot, or will not do his duty in protecting them from their enemies, and exposeth them for a prey to their devastations, as these examples and authorities conclude they may, though I will not positively determine so. Then certainly by equal, semblable and greater reason, subjects may lawfully take up necessary defensive Arms against their Kings, when they shall not only desert, but actually invade and wage war against them, destroy and wast them in an open Hostile manner, and handle them as cruelly as the worst of enemies: such a willful unnatural Hostile invasion, being far worse than any cowardly or bare desertion of thē when they are invaded by a foreign enemy. And if Kings in case of sottishness or Lunacy may be lawfully deposed from their kingdoms by common consent of their Realms, when they are altogether unfit or unable to govern, as B • shop Bilson asserts, and I have manifested else where: then much more may they be lawfully resisted by force without guilt of Treason or Rebellion, when they willfully and maliciously, contrary to their oath and duty, cast off their Royal governments, the protection of their subjects, and wage open war against them, to enslave or ruin them. If a Father shall violently and unjustly assault his son, a husband his wife, a master his servant, a Major or other inferior Officer, a Citizen to murder, maim, or ruin them; They may in such a case by the Law of Nature, God man, resist, repulse them in their own defense without any crime at all, as daily practice experimentally manifests; yea they may swear the peace against them, and have a Writ de securitate Pacis in such cases. Therefore by the selfsame reason they may resist the King and his Army in like cases; there being no more human nor divine Law against resistance in the one case, than in the other.

Finally, it is the resolution of John Bodin and others, who deny the lawfulness of Subjects taking up Arms against their Sovereign Prince, or offering violence to his person, though he become a Tyrant:

And in this sort, our Queen Elizabeth aided the Low-Countries against the Tyrannie and oppressions of the King of Spain: and the King of Sweden of late years the Princes of Germany against the Tyranny and usurpations of the Emperor, upon their solicitation, If then, it be thus lawful for Subjects to call in foreign Princes to relieve them against the Tyrannie and oppressions of their kings (as the Barons in King John's time prayed in aid from Philip and Lewis of France against his tyranny) and those Princes in such cases, may justly kill, depose, or judicially condemn these oppressing Kings and put them to death. I conceive these whole kingdoms and Parliaments may with far better reason, less danger, and greater safety to themselves, their Kings and Realms take up defensive Arms of their own to repulse their violence. For if they may lawfully help themselves and vindicate their Liberties from their Kings encroachments by the assistance and Arms of foreign Princes who have no relation to them, nor particular interest in the differences between their kings and them, which can hardly be effected without subjecting themselves to a foreign power; the death or deposition of the oppressing King: much more may they defend and relieve themselves against him by their own domestic Forces, if they be able, by general consent of the Realm; because they have a particular interest and engagement to defend their own persons, estates, liberties, which foreigners want; and by such domestic Forces may prevent a foreign subjection, preserve the life of the oppressing Prince, and succession of the Crown in the hereditary line; which foreign Armies most commonly endanger. And certainly it is all one in point of Reason, State, Law, Conscience, for Subjects to relieve themselves, and make a defensive war against their Sovereign by foreign Princes Arms, as by their own: and if the first be just and lawful, as all men generally grant without contradiction; and Bracton to l. 2. c. 16. I see no color but the latter must be just and lawful too, yea then the first rather, because less dangerous, less inconvenient to King and Kingdom.

From Reasons, I shall next proceed to punctual Authorities. Not to mention our ancient Brittons taking up of arms by joint consent, against their oppressing, tyrannizing Kings A • chigallo, Emerian, and Vortigern, whom they both expelled and deposed, for their tyranny and mis-government; nor our Saxons ray sing defensive Forces against King Sigebert, Osfred, Æthelred, Beornard, Coolwulfe and Edwyn, who were forcibly expelled, and deprived by their Subjects for their bloody cruelties and oppressions; which actions the whole Kingdom then, and those Historians who recorded them since, reputed just and honorable, and no Treason nor Rebellion in Law or Conscience, being for the Kingdoms necessary preservation, and the people's just defense; which Histories I have elsewhere more largely related. Nor yet to insist long on the fore-mentioned Barons war, against king John, and Henry the 3 ^d . for regaining, establishing, preserving Magna Cha • ta, and other Liberties of the Realm, which our Kings had almost utterly deprived them off; I shall only give you some few brief observations touching these wars, to clear them from those black aspersions of Rebellion, Treason, and the like, which some late Historians (especially John Speed ) to flatter those Kings to whom they Dedicated their Histories, have cast upon them, contrary to the judgment of our ancienter Choniclers, and Matthew Paris; who generally repute them lawful and honorable.

First then consider, what opinion the Prelates, Barons, and Kingdom in general, had of these Wars at first, Anno 1414. in a Parliament held at Paul's the 16. year of King John's reign, Steven Langton Archbishop of Canterbury, produced a Charter of King Henry the First, whereby he granted the Ancient Liberties of the Kingdom of England (which had by his Predecessors been oppressed with unjust exactions, according to the Laws of King Edward, with those emendations, which his Father, by the counsel of his Barons, did ratify: which Charter being read before the Barons, they much rejoiced; and swore in the presence of the Archbishop; that for these Liberties they would, if need required, spend their blood: which being openly done in Parliament, they would never have taken such a public solemn Oath, had they deemed a War against the King, for recovery, or defense of these their Liberties unlawful, and no less then Treason and Rebellion in point of Law or Conscience. After this the Barons assembling at Saint Edmond • bury, conferred about the said Charter, and swore upon the high Altar, That if King John refused to confirm and restore unto them those Liberties (the Rights of the Kingdom) they would make War upon him, and withdraw themselves from his Allegiance, until he had ratified them all w • th his Charter under his great Seal. And further agreed, after Christmas to Petition him for the same, and in the mean time to provide themselves of Horse and Furniture to be ready, if the King should start from his Oath made at Winchester, at the time of his absolution, for confirmation of these Liberties, and compel him to satisfy their demand. After Christmas they repair in a Military manner to the King, lying in the new Temple, urging their desires with great vehemency: the King seeing their resolution and inclination to war, made answer, That for the matter they required, he would take consideration till after Easter next, In the mean time, he took upon him the Cross, rather through fear, then devotion, supposing himself to be more safe under that Protection: And to show his desperate malice and willfulness (who rather then not to have an absolute domination over his people, to do what he listed, would be anything himself under any other that would but support him in his violences) he sent an Embassage (the most base and impious that ever yet was sent by any free and Christian Prince) unto Miramumalim the Moore, entitled the great King of Africa, Morocco, and Spain; wherein he offered to render unto him his Kingdom, and to hold the same by tribute from him as his Sovereign Lord; to forgo the Christian Faith, as vain, and to receive that of Mahomet, employing Thomas Hardington and Ralph Fitz-Nicholas, Knights, and Robert of London Clerke, Commissioners in this negotiation; whose manner of access to this great King, with the delivery of their Message, and King Johns Charter to that effect, are at large recited in Matthew Paris, who heard the whole relation from Robert one of the Commissioners, Miramumalim having heard at large their Message, and the Description of the King and Kingdom, (governed by an anointed and Crowned King, known of old to be free and ingenuous; ad nullius, praeterquam Dei spectans dominationem ) with the nature and disposition of the people, so much disdained the baseness and impiety of the Offerer, that fetching a deep sigh from his heart, he answered,

he commanded them to depart instantly out of his presence, and to see his face no more; whereupon they departing with shame; he charged Robert the Clerke, to inform him truly what manner of person King John was: who replied, When Miramumalim heard this, he not only despised, as at first, but detested and accursed him, and said: Truly, they are effeminate and flavish: To which Robert answered: Whereupon he reprehended the overmuch patience and fearfulness of the English; and dismissed these Messengers; who returning, and relating his Answer to King John, he was exceeding sorrowful, and in much bitterness of Spirit, that he was thus contemned and disappointed of his purpose. Yet persisting in his pre-conceived wicked design to ruin his Kingdom and people, and hating all the Nobility and Gentry of England, with a viperous Venom, he sets upon another course; and knowing Pope Jnnocent to be the most ambitious, proud, and covetous of all men, who by gifts and promises would be wrought upon, to act any wickedness: Thereupon he hastily dispatcheth messengers to him with great sums of Money, and a re-assurance of his tributary Subjection, (which shortly after he confirmed by a new Oath and Charter,) to procure him to Excommunicate the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Barons, whom he had formerly favored; which things he greedily desired, that he might wreck has malice an them by Dis inheriting, Imprisoning, and Spoiling them being Excommunicated: Which things when he had wickedly plotted, he more wickedly executed afterwards. In the mean time, the Barons foreseeing that nothing was to be obtained but by strong hand, assemble an Army at Stamford, wherein were said to be two thousand Knights, besides Esquires, and marched from thence towards Oxford, where the King expected their coming to answer their demands. And being come to Brackley with their Army, the King sends the Earl of Pembroke Mariscall, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, with others, to demand of them, what were those Laws and Liberties they required? to whom they shown a Schedule of them, which the Commissioners delivered to the King: who having heard them read, in great indignation asked; Why the Barons did not likewise demand the Kingdom? and swore he would never grant those Articles, whereby himself should be made a Servant. So harsh a thing is it to a power, that is once gotten out into the wide liberty of his will, to hear again of any reducing within his Circle. Upon this answer, the Barons resolve to seize the Kings Castles; constitute Robert Fitz-walter their General, entitling him, Mariscall of the ARMY of GOD, and of HOLY CHURCH: A Title they would never have given their General, or Army, had they deemed this War unlawful in Law or Conscience. After which they took divers of the Kings Castles and are admitted into London; where their number daily increasing, they make this Protestation; Never to give over the prosecution of their desire, till they had constrained the King (whom they held perjured) to grant them their Rights. Which questionless, they would not have done, had they not believed this War to be just and lawful. King John seeing himself in a manner generally forsaken of all his people, and Nobles, having scarce 7. Knights faithful to him (another strong argument, that the people and Kingdom generally apprehended, this taking up arms against the King to regain, to preserve their hereditary Rights and Liberties, to be lawful) counterfeits the Seals of the Bishops, and writes in their Names to all Nations, That the English were all Apostates, and whosoever would come to invade them, he, by the Popes consent, would confer upon them all their Lands and Possossions. But this device working no effect, in regard they gave no credit to it, and found it apparently false; the King seeing himself deserted of all, and that those of the Barons part were innumerable, ( cum tota Angliae Nobilitas in unum collecta, quasi sub numero non cadebat, writes Matthew Paris, another argument of the justice of this cause and war, in their beliefes and consciences; at last condescended to grant and confirm their Liberties, which he did at Running-Meade, in such sort as I have formerly related. And though the Pope afterwards for his own private ends and interest, (bribed by King John, who resigned his Kingdom to him, and became his Vassall, without his people's consent, which resignation was judged void,) excommunicated the Barons withal their assistance; Qui Ioha • nem illustrum Regim Anglorum Cruce signatum, ET VASALLVM ROMANAE ECCLESIAE (an honorable Title indeed for a King) pers quuntur, molientes ei Regnum auferre (which this Pope him self did but few years before, giving his Crown and Kingdom it self to King Phillip of France, which to save, he sordidly resigned up to the Pope) quod ad Romanam Ecclesiam dignoscitur pertinere. Yet this Excommunication thus procured by bribery, proceeding not out of Conscience to preserve the Kings due Rights, but self-respects to support the Popes usurped interest and Title to the Realm; and being a wicked plot of the King, more wickedly executed by the Pope, (who as Matthew Paris writes, was AD OMNIA SCELERA pro praemijs datis vel promissis cercus & proclivis ) and the Cum Petro Apostolo & ejus Successoribus non nisi Ecclesiasticarum dispositio rerum a Domino sit collata potestas. And using likewise these memorable Speeches in those blind days against the Pope and his usurped Supremacy, with liberty. Vt quid ad nos se extendit Romanorum insatiata cupiditas? Quid Episcopis Apostolicis & Militiae nostrae? Ecce successores Constantini & non Petri, non imitantur Petrum in meritis, vel operibus; nec assimulandi sunt in Potestate. Prob pudor, marcidi ribaldi, qui de armis vel literalitate minime norunt, jam toti mundo propter excom nunicationes suas volunt dominari; ignobiles usurarij & Simoniales. O quantum dissimules Petro, qui sibi Petri usurpant partem? &c. I conceive this Excommunication rather justifies then disproves the lawfulness of this their taking up of arms, and the war ensuing it being but for their own just defense, when the King afterwards with fire, sword, and bloody barbarous Forraigne Forces wasted his Realm in a most inhumane, tyrannical manner, Factus de Rege Tyrannus; imo in bestialem prorumpens feritatem, &c. which necessitated the Barons for their own preservation and the Kingdoms (devoted by this unnatural Prince to Vassallage and utter desolation) to elect Lewis of France for their King: Who, together with the Peers and Estates of France, assembled at Lions concerning this Election; resolved it to be just and lawful, and the Barons Defensive Wars against, and rejection of King John for his Tyranny and oppressions, to be just and honorable, since they did but flee to these extraordinary remedies, and seek for justice abroad, when they were denied it by him that should give it them in as ordinary way at home, choosing a King, in place of a Tyrant, as Matthew Paris, with the general History of France (written by John de Serres, and Englished by Edward Grimston ) more largely manifest.

Secondly, the Lawfulnesse and justness of the Barons Wars in Defense of Magna Charta, with other their Hereditary Rights and Liberties, appears most evidently, by the resolution of all those Parliaments summoned by King. Henry the 3 ^d. Edward the 1 ⁰ 2. 3. Richard the 2 ^d. and other our succeeding Kings; which have many times, even by force of Arms, or Menaces; and sometimes by fair terms, caused these Kings by new Acts of Parliament to ratify Magnae Charta, the Charter of the Forest, with other Fundamental Liberties, thus forcibly extorted from King John at first; and constrained them to confirm him with their Oaths and solemn public Excommunications, to be published by the Bishops in their Dio • esse twice every year: oft solemnly vowing, and protesting, both in and out of Parliament, to defend these Laws and Liberties, with their estates, arms, lives, blood; which their ancasters had purchased with their blood; as I have manifested in the two first parts of this Discourse: All which they would no doubt have forborne, had they deemed it high Treason or Rebellion in point of Law, to take up arms against their Kings in defense or these Laws and Privileges; neither would our Kings and Parliaments in times of Peace, have so frequently confirmed these Laws and Immunities, as just and necessary for the people's welfare, had they reputed their former purchases and confirmations by war and arms, no less then Treason, or Rebellion. And if it were neither Treason nor Rebellion in the judgments of our Ancestors and those Parliaments which procured, and ratified Magna Charta, to take up arms in defense thereof; much less can it be Treason or Rebellion in the Parliament and Subjects now (by Votes, by Ordinances of both Houses) with force of arms to preserve, not only these their hereditary Charters, Laws, Privileges, but their very Lives, Estates; yea, the Privileges and being of Parliaments themselves, which are now invaded, endangered.

What opinion the world had of the lawfulness of most of the Barons Wars in King Henry the 3 ^d. his Rain, against this troublesome perfidious King, in defense of their Laws, Liberties, Estates, appears first, by the Dialogue between Agnellus, a Frier minorite, one of King Henry his Counsel, (purposely sent to the Earl Marshall, then in arms against the King) and this Martial Earl, in the Abbey of Morgan. Anno 1233. I will first relate the true state of that War, and then their Dialogue concerning it: King Henry by the ill counsel of Peter Bishop of Winchester, removed all his English Officers, Counselors, and Servants from his Court, and put Poictovines, and Foreigners in their places, being ruled wholly by them; withal he puts the English Garrisons out of all his Castles, and substitutes Foreigners in them, which daily arrived both with Horse and arms in great multitudes, and much oppressed the people, calling them Traitors; so that the power and wealth of the Realm was wholly under their Command. The Earl Marshall seeing the Noble and Ignoble thus oppressed, and the rights of the Kingdom like utterly to be lost; provoked with a zeal of Justice, associating to himself other Noble men, goes boldly to the King, reproves him in the hearing of many,

To which Peter of Winchester replied: That the King might lawfully call in what strangers be would, for the Defense of his Kingdom and Crown, and likewise so many, and such, as might compel his proud and rebellious Subjects to due Obedience. Whereupon the Earl Marshall and other Nobles, departing discontented from the Court, when they could get no other answer, promised firmly one to another; That for this cause which concerned them all, they would manfully fight, even to the separation of Soul and Body. After which, they seeing more Strangers arrive with Horse and arms every day, sent word to the King; That he should forthwith remove Bishop Peter, and all his Strangers from his Court, which if he refused, they all would BY THE COMMON CONSENT OF THE WHOLE REALM drive him, with his wicked Counselors, out of the Realm, and consult of choosing them a new King. After these, and some other like passages, the King raising an Army, besiegeth one of the Earls Castles; and not being able to win it, and ashamed to raise his Seige without gaining it, he sent certain Bishops to the Earl, and requested him; that since he had besieged his Castle, and he could not with Honor depart without winning it, which he could not do by force, that the Earl to save his Honor would cause it to be surrended to him, upon this condition, That he would restore it certainly to him within 15. days, and that by advise of the Bishops he would amend all things amiss in his Kingdom; for performance of which the Bishops became his Pledges, and the King appointed a meeting at Westminster, on a set day between Him and the Lord's: whereupon the Earl surrendered the Castle to the King, upon Oath made by the Bishops that it should be restored at the day. But the King refusing to deliver the Earl the Castle, according to promise, and threatening to subdue his other Castles; the Earl hereupon raiseth his Forces, wins his Castle again, routs divers of the Kings Forraigne Forces, at Gorsemond, Monmouth, and

William Rishanger in his continuation of Matthew Paris, speaking of the death of Simon Monfort Earl of Leycester, slain in the Battle of Ev • sham, the greatest Pillar of the Barrons wars; useth this expression.

Thus this Historian, thus Robert Grosthead the most devout and learned Bishop of that age, (who most of any opposed the Popes Usurpations and exactions) determine of the justice and lawfulness of the Barons Wars; Walter Bishop of Worcester concurring in the same opinion with Grosthead. The same author Rishanger records; that the Earl of Gloucester, a great stickler in these wars against the king, with whom at last he accorded; signified to the King by his Letters Patents under his seal, that he would never bear Arms against the King his Lord, nor against his Son Prince Edward, NISI DEFENDO; but only in his Defense: which the King and Prince accepting of, clearly proves; that defensive Arms against King or Prince were in that age generally reputed Lawfull, by King Prince, Prelates, Nobles, People. I may likewise add to this what I read in Matthew Westminster, that Richard Bishop of Chichester the day before the battle of Lewis against King Henry and his son (who were taken prisoners in it by the Barons and 20000. of their Soldiers slain;) absolved all that went to fight against the King their Lord from all their sins. Such confidence had he of the goodness of the cause and justness of the war.

In one word, the oath of association prescribed by the Barons to the King of Romans, brother to King Henry the third, in the 43. year of his Rain; Hear all men, that I Richard Earl of Cornewall, do here swear upon the holy Evangelists, that I shall be faithful, and diligent to reform with you the Kingdom of England, hitherto by the council of wicked persons overmuch disordered: and be an effectual Co • djutor TO EXPELL THE REBELLS, and disturbers of the same. And this Oath I will inviolaby observe, under pa • ne of losing all the lands I have in England: So help me God. Which Oath all the Barrons and their associates took, (by virtue whereof they took up arms against the Kings ill Counselors, and himself when he joined with them,) sufficiently demonstrates their public opinions and judgments of the lawfulness, the justness of their wars; and of all other necessary defensive arms, taken up by the Kingdoms general assent for preservation of its Laws, Liberties, and suppression of those Rebels, and ill Counselors who fight against, or labor to subvert them by their policies.

In the third year of King Edward the 2 ^d , this king revoking his great Mynion Piers Gaveston, newly banished by the Parliament into Ireland, and admitting him into as great favor as before, contrary to his oath and promise: the Barrons hereupon by common consent sent the King word; that he should banish Piers from his company according to his agreement, or else they would certain • lie rise up against him as a perjured person. Upon which the King much terrified suffers Piers to abjure the Realm; who returning again soon after to the Court at York; where the king entertained him; the Lord's spiritual and temporal, to preserve he liberties of the Church and Realm, sent an honorable message to the King, to deliver Piers into their hands, or banish him, for the preservation of the peace, Treasure and weal of the Kingdom; this willful King denies their just request; whereupon the Lord's thus contemned and deluded, raised an army, and march with all speed towards New-Castle, NOT TO OFFER INIVRIE OR MOLESTATION TO THE KING, but to apprehend Peirs, and judge him according to Law: upon this the King fleeth together with Peirs to Tinemouth, and from thence to Scarborough Castle, where Piers is forced to render himself to the Barrons, who at Warwick Castle, (without any legal trial by mere martial Law) beheaded him, as a subvertor of the Laws, and an OPEN TRAITOR TO THE KINGDOME. For which facts this King afterwards reprehending and accusing the Lord's in Parliament, in the 7 ^th year of his Rain; they stoutly answered, THAT THEY HAD NOT OFFENDED IN ANY ONE POINT, BVT DESERVED HIS ROYAL FAVOVR, for they HAD NOT GATHERED FORCE AGAINST HIM ( though he were in Piers his company, assisted, countenanced, and fled with him ) BVT AGAINST THE PVBLICKE ENEMIE OF THE REALME: Whereupon there were two acts of oblivion passed by the King, Lord's and Commons assembled in that Parliament, (Printed in the 2 ^d Part of old Magna Charta:) The first, that no person (on the Kings part) should be questioned, molested, impeached, imprisoned, and brought to judgment, for causing Pierce to return from Exile, or harboring, councelling or aiding hi •• ere after his return: The second on the Barons part, in these words: It is provided by the King, and by the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Bar • s and Commons, of the Realm, assembled according to our Command, and unanimously assented and accorded, that none of what estate or condition soever he be, shall in time to come be appealed or challenged, for the apprehending, deteining, or death of Peirsde Gaveston, nor shall for the said death be apprehended, nor imprisoned, impeached, molested, nor grieved, nor judgment given against him by us, nor by others at our suite, nor at the suite of any other, either in the Kings Court or elsewhere. Which act the King by his Writ, sent to the Judges of the Kings Bench, commanding that this grant and concord shall be firm and stable in all its points, and that every of them should be held, and kept in perpetuity; to which end he commands them to cause this act to be there enrolled, and firmly kept forever. A pregnant evidence that the Barons taking up Arms then against this Traitor and enemy of the Realm, in pursuance of the Act and sentence of Parliament for his banishment, though the King were in his company, and assisted him all he might, was then both by King and Parliament, adjudged no Treason, nor Rebellion at all in point of Law, but a just & honorable action: Wherefore their taking up Arms is not mentioned in this Act of oblivion, seeing they all held it just, but their putting Piers to death, without legal trial; which in strictness of Law, could not be justified. Now whether this be not the Parliaments and kingdoms present case in point of Law (who took up arms principally at first, for defense of their own Privileges of Parliament, and apprehention of delinquents who seducing the king withdrew him from the Parliament, and caused him to raise an Army to shelter themselves under its power against the Parliament) let every reasonable man determine: and if it be so, we see this ancient Act of Parliament resolves it, to be no high Treason, nor Rebellion, nor offense against the King; but a just, lawful act, for the kings, the kingdoms honor and safety.

Not long after this, the two Spensers getting into the kings favor, and seducing, miscouncelling him as much as Gaveston did; the Lord's and Barrons hereupon in the 14 ^th and 15 ^th years of his reign, confederated together, to live and die for justice, and to their power to destroy the TRAITORS OF THE REALME, Especially the two Spensers: after which they raised an Army, whereof they made Thomas Earl of Lancaster General; and meeting at Sherborne, they plunder and destroy the Spensers Castles, Manors. Houses, Friends, Servants, and marching to Saint Albanes with Ensigns displayed, sent Messengers to the King then at London, admonishing him not only to rid his Court but Kingdom, of the TRAITORS TO THE REALME, the Spensers (condemned by the Commons in many Articles) to preserve the peace of the Realm; and to grant them and all their followers Lette • s Patents of indemnity, for what they had formerly done. Which the King at first denied but afterwards this Army marching up to London, where they were received by the City, he yielded to it, and in the 15 ^th year of his Rain by a special Act of Parliament the said Spensers were disinherited and banished the Realm (formis-councelling the king, oppressing the people by injustice, a vising him to levy war upon his Subjects, making evil Judges and other Officers to the hurt of the King and Kingdom, • ng • ossing the Kings ear, and usurping his Royal authority) as ENEMIES of the King and OF HIS PEOPLE: and by another Act of Parliament, it was then provided, that no man should be questioned for any felonies or trespasses committed in the prosecution of Hugh • e de pensers the father and son; which Act runs thus?

From which Act of Parliament I shall observe these three things. First, that this their taking up Arms to apprehend the Spens • rs as enemies to the King and kingdom, and marching with banners displayd, was not then reputed high Treason or Rebellion against the King, though it were by way of offense, not of defense, and without any authority of Parliament: for there is not one word of Treason or Rebellion in this Act, or in the Charter of pardon pursuing it: and if it had been high Treason, this Act and Charters on it extending only to Fellonie and Trespasses not to Treasons and Rebellions, would not have pardoned these transcendent Capitall crimes. Secondly, that the unlawful outrages, robberies, and murders committed by the soldiers on the kings leige people, and not on the two Spensers the sole delinquents, were the occasion of this Act of oblivion and pardon, not the Armed pursuing of them, when they had gotten above the reach of Law. Thirdly, that though this were an offensive not defensive war, made without common assent of Parliament, and many murders, robberies, and misdemeanors committed in the prosecution of it upon the kings leige people who were no Delinquents; yet being for the common good to suppress and banish these ill Counselors, enemies, Traitors to King and Kingdom, the King and Parliament thought it such a public service as merited a pardon of these misdemeanors in the carriage of it, and acquitted all who were parties to it, from all suites and punishments. All which considered, is a clear demonstration, that they would have resolved our present defensive war, by Authority of both Houses, accompanied with no such outrages as these; for the apprehension of such as have been voted Traitors and Delinquents by Parliament, and stand out in contempt against its justice, for the defense of the Privileges and Members of Parliament, the Liberties and properties of the subject, the fundamental laws of the Realm, the Protestant Religion now endangered by Papists up in Arms in England and Ireland to extirpate it, and the removing ill Counselors from his Majesty; to be no high Treason, Rebellion or offense at all against the king, but a just and lawful Act, the very miscarriages whereof in the general (except in such disorderly Soldiers for whom martial Law hath provided due punishments) deserve a public pardon both from King and Kingdom. And to put this out of Question; as no fancy of mine own, we have an express Act of Parliament, resolving the taking up of Arms by the Queen, Prince, (both but subjects and capable of High Treason in such a case as well as others) the Nobles and people of the Realm against these two Spensers and other ill Counselors about this king in the last year of his reign, (though the King himself were in their Company, and taken prisoner by the Forces raised against them,) for the necessary preservation, relief, and safety of the Queen, Prince, Nobles, Kingdom, to be no high Treason nor offense at all: namely, the statute of 1 E. 3. c. 1. 2. 3, which I shall recite at large.

Certainly here was an higher pursuit and levying war against the King and his evil Counselors, then any yet attempted by this Parliament; and a war rather offensive, then defensive, in which the king himself was both taken and detained Priso • r, and then forced to resign his Crown to his son; yet this is here justified, as a necessary, just and lawful war by an Act of Parliament, never yet repealed; and all that bare Arms against the king and his ill Counselors, yea they who pursued, apprehended, and imprisoned the king himself, are, as to this particular, discharged by the king, and whole Parliament from all manner of guilt, of punishment, or prosecution whatsoever against them. Which consideration makes me somewhat confident, that this King and the Parliament held in the 25. year of his Rain, ch. 2. Which declares it high Treason, to levy war against the King in his Realm, did never intend it of a necessary defensive war against a seduced King and his evil Counselors (especially by the Votes of both Houses of Parliament, who doubtless would never pass any Act to make themselves, or their Posterity in succeeding Parliaments, Traitors, for taking up mere necessary defensive Arms for their own, and the Kingdoms preservation) for that had been diametra • lie contrary to this statute, made in the very first year and Parliament of this King; and would have l • yd an aspertion of High Treason upon the king himself, the Queen his Mother, their own Fathers, and many of themselves; who thus took up Arms and made a defensive kind of war upon King • dward the 2 ^d , taking him prisoner: but only to Rebellious insurrections, of private persons, without any public authority of Parliament, or the whole Kingdom in general; and of mere offensive wars against the King without any just occasion, hostility or violence on the Kings part, necessitating them to take up defensive Arms: which I humbly submit to the judgment of those grand Rabbies and Sages of the Law, and the Honorable Houses of Parliament, who are best able to resolve, and are the only Judges to determine this point in controversy, by the express letter and provision of 25. Ed. 3. ch. 2. of Treasons.

In the first year of king Richard the 2 ^d . John Mercer a Scot, with a Navy of Spanish, Scottish & French ships much infested the Merchants and Coasts of England taking many prises without any care taken by the king, Lord's, or Council to resist them. Whereupon John Philpot a rich Merchant of London, diligently considering the defect, that I say not treachery of the Duke of I ancaster, and other Lord's who ought to defend the Realm, and grieving to see the oppressions of the people, did at his proper charge hire a thousand soldiers and set out a fleet, to take the said Mercers ships, with the goods he had gotten by Pyracie, and defend the Realm of England from such incursions: who in a short time took M • rcer prisoner, with 15. Spanish ships, and all the Booties he had gained from the English: whereat all the people rejoiced exceedingly, commending and extolling Philpot for the great love he shown to his Country, and casting out some reproachful words against the Nobles and Kings council who had the rule of the kingdom and neglected its defense: Whereupon the Nobility, Earls and Barons of the Realm, conscious of this their negligence, and envying Philpo • for this his Noble praise-worthy action, began not only secretly to lay snares for him, but openly to reproach him, saying: That it was not lawful for him to do such things without the advise or council of the King and Kingdom: quasi non licuisset benefacere Regi VELREGNO sine consilio Comitum & Baronum: (Writes Walsingham) as if it were not lawful to do good to the King or Kingdom, without the advise of the Earls and Barrons, or Lord's of the Privy Council. To whom objecting these things, and especially to Hugh Earl of Stafford, who was the chief Prolocutor and spake most against it, John Philpot gave this answer:

From this memorable history and discourse (which I have translated verbatim out of Walsingham, ) I conceive it most evident, that in the default of king and Nobles, it is lawful for the Commons and every particular subject without any Commission from the king or his Council, in times of iminent danger, to take up Arms and raise Forces by Sea or Land to defend the king and his Native Country against invading enemies; as Philpot did, without offense or crime. Then much more may the Houses of Parliament, the representative body of the whole kingdom, and all private Subjects by their Command, take up necessary defensive Arms against the kings Popish and Malignant Forces to preserve the king, Kingdom, Parliament, People from spoil, and ruin.

In the 8. year of King Richard the 2 ^d . there arose a great difference between the Duke of Lancaster, & the king & his young complices, who conspired the Dukes death; agreeing suddenly to arrest and arraign him before Robert Trisilian Chief Justice, who boldly promised to pass sentence against him, according to the quality of the crimes objected to him. Upon this the Duke having private intelligence of their treachery, to provide for his own safety, wisely withdrew himself, and posted to his Castle at Ponfract, storing it with Arms and Victualls. Hereupon not only a private but public discord was like to ensue; but by the great mediation and pains of Ione the kings mother, an accord and peace was made between them: and this defense of the Duke by fortifying his Castle with Arms against the King and his ill instruments for his own just preservation, held no crime. If such a defense then were held just and lawful in one particular Subject and Peer of the land only, much more must it be so in both Houses of Parliament, and the Kingdom, in case the Kings Forces invade them.

In the 10 ^th year of King Richard the second this inconstant king being instigated by Michael de la Pole, Robert V • ere Duke of Ireland, Alexander Nevill ARchbishop of York. Robert Trysilian. and other ill Counselors and Traitors to the kingdom, endeavored to seize upon the Duke of Gloucester, the Earls of Arundell, Warwick, Derby, Nottingham, and others who were faithful to the kingdom, and to put them to death, having caused them first to be indighted of High Treason at Nottingham Castle, and hired many Soldiers to surprise them: Hereupon these Lord's for their own just defense, raised Forces and met at Harynggye Park with a numerous Army: whereat the King being much perplexed, advised what was best for him to do. The Archbishop of York and others of his ill Council, advised him to gee forth and give them battle; but his wisest councellors dissuaded him, affirming, that the King should gain no benefit if he vanquished them and should sustain great dishonor and loss if he were conquered by them. In the mean time Hugh Linne an old Soldier, who had lost his senses, and was reputed a fool, coming in to the Council, the King demanded of him in jest, what he should do against the Nobles met together in the said Park? who answered; Let us go forth and assault them, and slay every mothers son of them, and by the eyes of God, this being finished, THOU HAST SLAINE ALL THE FAITHFVLL FRIENDS THOU HAST IN THE KINGDOME. Which answer, though uttered foolishly; yet wise men did most of all consider. At last is was resolved by the mediators of Peace, that the Lord's should meet the King at Westminster, and there receive an answer to the things for which they took Arms; thither they came strongly Armed with a great guard, for fear of ambuscadoes to entrap them: where the Chancellor in the Kings name spake thus to them. My Lord's, our Lord the King hearing that you were lately assembled at Harenggye Park in an unusual manner; would not rush upon you as he might have easily done, had he not had care of you, and those who were with you: because no man can doubt, if he had raised an Army, he would have had many more men than you, and p • rchance much blood of men had been spilled, which the King doth most of all abhor, and therefore assuming to himself patience and mildness, he hath made choice to convent you peceably, and to tell him the reason why yoy have ass • mbled so many men. To which the Lord's answered, That THEY HAD MET TOGETHER FOR THE GOOD OF THE KING AND KINGDOME; AND THAT THEY MIGHT PVLL AWAY THOSE TRAITORS FROM HIM, WHICH HE CONTINVALLY DET AINED WITH HIM. The Traitors they appealed were the foresaid ill Counselors, and Nicholas Brambre the false London Knight: and to prove this appeal of them true, casting down their gloves they said they would prosecute it by Duel: The King answered; This shall not be done now, but in the next Parliament, with we appoint to be the morrow after the Purification of the blessed Virgin, to which as well you as they coming, shall receive satisfaction in all things according to Law. The Lord's for their own safety kept together till the Parliament, and in the mean timed feated the Forces of the Duke of Ireland, raised privately by the Kings Command to surprise them. The Parliament coming on the 11. year of Richard the second: these ill councellors were therein, by special Acts attainted, condemned of High Treason, and some of them executed; and these defensive Arms of the Lord's, for their own and the Kingdoms safety, adjudged and declared to be no Treason: but a thing done to the honor of God and Salvation of the King and his Realm: witness the express words of the Printed Act of 11 R. 2. c. 1. which I shall transcribe. Our Sovereign Lord the King amongst other Petitions and requests to him made by the Commons of his said Realm in the said Parliament, hath received one Petition in the form following. The Commons prayed, that whereas the last Parliament for cause of the great and horrible mischiefs and perils which another time were fallen BY EVILL GOVERNANCE WHICH WAS ABOUT THE KINGS PERSON, by all his time before by Alexander late Archbishop of York, Robert de Veere late Duke of Ireland, Michael de la Pole late Earl of Suffolk,

This Act with others made the same Parliament continued inviolable without dispute for 10 years space, during w ^ch there were 8. more Parliaments held w ^ch approved it: but in 21 R. 2. the King having violently seised upon the Duke of Gloucester & the Earls of Warwick and Arundell, and packed a Parliament to his mind, by not summoning any Lord's thereto but those o • his party, by causing divers Knights and Burgesses of his own nomination, never chosen by the people, to be returned in divers places, and overawing the rest with a guard or 4000. Cheshire Archers, caused these Lord's to be illegally attainted of Treason upon feigned pretences, out of this old grudge, and the Acts of this Parliament to be reversed; yet not this Act, as I conceive, which is part of it, being specially saved by 21. R. 2. c. 13. But however by the statute of 1 H. 4. c. 3. 4. the Parliament of 21. was wholly repealed, reversed, revoked, voided, undone and anulled forever, with all the Acts, circumstances, and dependants thereof: and this Parliament of 11. R. 2. Enacted to be firmly holden and kept after the purport and effect of the same; as a thing made for the great Honor and common profit of the Realm, and ch. 5. It is ordained and assented, that the Lord's and other which were

So that by the express resolution of these two several Parliaments, these Lord's and Commons taking up defensive Arms and making war against those wicked Counselors of this King which sought their ruin, and endeavored the destruction of the Realm (though they had the kings presence and commissions to countenance all their actions and proceedings of this nature, and the Lord's wanted the Ordinances of both houses to authorize this their arming, and war) was solemnly declared and adjudged, to be no Treason nor Rebellion at all, nor levying of war against the king, within the statute of 25. E. 3. but contrariwise; a thing done to the honor of God, the Salvation of the King, (for if the Kingdom perish or miscarry, the king as king must needs perish with it) the maintenance of his Crown, (supported only by the maintenance of the kingdoms welfare) and the Salvation and common profit of all the Realm: and this being one of the first solemn judgments (if not the very first) given in Parliament after the making of the statute of 25 E. 3. which hath relation to its clause of levying war, must certainly be the best exposition of that Law: which the Parliament only ought to interpret, as is evident by the statute of 21. R. 2. c. 3. (It is ordained and stablished, that every man which, &c. or he that raiseth the people and riseth against the King to make war within his Realm; and of that be duly attainted and judged in the Parliament shall be judged as a Traitor of High Treason against the Crown, ) and other forecited Acts: and if this were no Treason, nor Rebellion, nor Trespass in the Barons against the king or kingdom; but a war for the honor of God, the salvation of the king, the maintenance of his Crown, the safety and common profit of all the Realm; much more must our Parliaments present defensive war against his Majesty's ill Counselors, Papists, Malignants, Delinquents, and men of desperate fortunes, risen up in Arms against the Parliament, Laws, Religion, Liberties, the whole Kingdoms peace and welfare, be so too; being backed with the very same, and far better, greater authority, and more public reasons then their war was, in which the safety of Religion was no great ingredient, nor the preservation of a Parliament from a forced dissolution, though established and perpetuated by a public Law.

King Henry the 4 ^th , taking up Arms against King Richard, and causing him to be Articled against, and judicially deposed in and by Parliament for his Male-administration; It was Enacted by the Statute of 1. Hen 4. cap. 2. That no Lord Spiritual nor Temporal, nor other, of what estate or condition that he be, which came with King Henry into the Realm of England, nor none other persons whatsoever they be, then dwelling within the same Realm, and which came to this King in aide of him, to pursue them which were against the Kings good intent, and the COMMON PROFIT OF THE REALME, in which pursuit Richard late King of England, the second after the Conquest, was pursued taken and put in Ward, and yet remaineth in Ward, be impeached, grieved, nor vexed in person, nor in goods, in the Kings Court, nor in none other Court, for the pursuits of the said King, taking and with-holding of his body, nor for the pursuits of any other, taking of persons and cattells, or of the death of a man, or any other thing done in the said pursuit, from the day of the said King that now is arrived, till the day of the Coronation of Our said Sovereign Lord Henry. And the intent of the King is not, that offenders which committed Trespasses, or other offenses out of the said pursuits, without special warrant, should be aided, nor have any advantage of this Statute, but that they be thereof answerable at the Law. If those then who in this offensive War assisted Henry the 4 ^th . to apprehend, and depose this perfidious, oppressing tyrannical king, seduced by evil Counselors and his own innate dis-affection to his natural people, deserved such an immunity of persons and goods, from all kinds of penalties, because though it tended to this ill kings deposition, yet in their intentions it was really for the common profit of the Realm, as this Act defines it. No doubt this present defensive War alone against Papists, Delinquents, and evil Counselors, (who have miserably wasted, spoiled, sacked many places of the Realm, and fired others in a most barbarous manner, contrary to the Law of Arms and Nations, and labor to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, Parliaments, and make the Realm a common Prey) without any ill intention against his Majesty's Person, or lawful Royal Authority, deserves a greater immunity; and can in no reasonable man's judgment, be interpreted any Treason, or Rebellion against the king, or his Crown, in Law or Conscience.

In the 33. year of king Henry the 6 ^th . (a weak Prince wholly guided by the Queen and Duke of Somerset, who ruled all things at their wills, under whose Government, the greatest part of France was lost;) all things went to ruin both abroad and at home; and the Queen (much against the Lord's and Peoples minds) preferring the Duke of Sommerset to the Captain ship of Calais, the Commons and Nobility were greatly offended thereat, saying, That he had lost Normandy, and so would he do • Calais. Hereupon the Duke of York, the Earls of Warwick and Salisbury, with other their adherents, raised an Army in the Marches of Wales, and Marched with it towards London, to suppress the Duke of Sommerset with his Faction, and reform the Governement. The king being credibly informed hereof, assembled his Host, and marching towards the Duke of York and his Forces, was encountered by them at Saint Albanes, notwithstanding the kings Proclamation to keep the Peace; where in a set Battle, the Duke of Somerset, with divers Earls, and 800. others were slain on the kings part, by the Duke of York, and his companions, and the king •• a manner defeat. The Duke after this Victory obtained, remembering that he had oftentimes declared and published abroad; The only cause of this War to be, THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE PUBLIKE WEALE, and TO SET THE REALME IN A MORE COMMODIOVS STATE and BETTER CONDITION; Vsing all lenity, mercy, and bounteousnesse, would not once touch or apprehend the body of King Henry, whom he might have slain, and utterly destroyed, considering that he had him in his Ward, and Governance; but with great honor and due reverence, conveyed him to London; and so to Westminster: where a Parliament being summoned and assembled soon after; It was therein Enacted, That no person should either judge or report any point of untruth of the Duke of York, the Earls of Salisbury and Warwick, For coming in Warlike manner against the King at Saint Albanes. Considering that their attempt and enterprise, Was only to see the Kings Person in Safeguard and Sure-keeping, and to put and Alien from Him the public Oppressors of the Common wealth; by whose misgovernance, his life might be in hazard, and his Authority hang on a very small Thred. After this, the Duke, and these Earls raised another Army, for like purpose, and their own defense in the 37 and 38 years of H. 6. for which they were afterwards, by a packed Parliament at Coventree, by their Enemies procurement, Attainted of high Treason, and their Lands and Goods confiscated. But in the Parliament of 39. H. 6. cap. 1. The said attainder, Parliament, with all Acts and Statutes therein made, were wholly Reversed Repealed, annulled; as being made • y the excitation and procurement of seditious ill disposed Persons for the accomplishment of their own Rancor and Covetousness, that they might enjoy the Lands, Offices. Possessions, and Goods of the lawful • ords and liege People of the King; and that they might finally destroy the laid lawful Lord's, and Liege People, and their Issues and Heirs forever (as now the Kings ill Counselors, and hungry Cavalleers seek to destroy the Kings faithful Liege Lord's and People, that they may gain their Lands and Estates; witness the late intercepted Le • ter of Sir John Brooks, giving advise to thus purpose to his Majesty:) and this Assembl • was declared; to be no lawful Parliament, but a devilish Counsel, which desired more the destruction then advancement of the Public weal; and the Duke, Earls, with their assistants were restored, and declared to be Faithful and Lawful Lord's, and Faithful liege People of the Realm of England, who always had great and Fathfull Love to the Preferrement and Surety of the Kings Person, according to their Duty.

If then these two Parliaments acquitted these Lord's and their companions, thus taking up Arms, from any the least guilt of Treason and rebellion against the King, because they did it only for the advancement of the public weal, the setting the Realm in a better condition the removing ill Counselors, and public oppressors of the Realm from about the King, and to rescue his person out of their hands: then questionless by their resolutions, our present Parliaments taking up defensive arms, upon the self-same grounds, and other important causes (and that by consent of both Houses, which they wanted) can be reputed no high Treason nor Rebellion against the King in point of Law; and no just, no rational Judge or Lawyer can justly aver the contrary, against so many forecited resolutions in Parliament, even in printed Acts.

The Earl of Richmund, afterward King Henry the seventh, taking up arms against Richard the third, (a lawful King, defacto, being crowned by Parliament; but an Usurper and bloody • yrant in Verity;) to recover his Inheritance, and Title to the Crown, and ease the Kingdom of this unnatural blood-thirsty Oppressor, before his fight at Boswell Field, used this Oration to his Soldiers, pertinent to our purpose.

They did so, slew the Tyrannicall Usurper, won the Field; And in the first Parliament of his Rain, there was this Act of indemnity passed,

Which battle though it were just, and no Treason nor Rebellion in point of Law in those that assi • ted King Henry the 7 ^th . against this Usurper; yet because the killing of men, and seising their goods in the time of War, is against the very fundamental Laws of the Realm, they needed an Act of Parliament to discharge them from suits and prosecutions at the Law for the same: the true reason of all the forecited Acts of this nature, which make no mention of pardoning any Rebellions or Treasons against the King, (for they deemed their forementioned taking up of Arms no such offenses) but only discharge the Subjects from all suites, actions, and prosecutions at Law for any killing or slaying of men, batteries, imprisonments, robberies, and trespasses, in seising of Persons, Goods, Chattels.

What our Princes and State have thought of the lawfulness of necessary Defensive sive Wars of Subjects against their oppressing Kings and Princes, appears by those aides and succors which our Kings in former ages have sent to the French, Flemmings, Almaines, and others, when their Kings and Princes have injuriously made Wars upon them, and more especially, by the public aid and assistance which our Queen Elizabeth and King James by the public advise and consent of the Realm, gave to the Protestants in France, Germany, Bohemia, and the Netherlands against the King of France, the Emperor, and King of Spain, who oppressed and made War upon them, to deprive them of their just Liberties and Religion, of which more hereafter. Certainly, had their Defensive Wars against their Sovereign Princes to preserve their Religion, Liberties, Privileges, been deemed Treason, Rebellion, in point of Law; Queen Elizabeth, King James, and our English State, would never have so much dishonored themselves, nor given so ill an example to the world, to Patronize Rebells or Traitours; or enter into any solemn Leagues and Covenants with them as then they did, which have been frequently renewed and continued to this present.

And to descend to our present times; our King Charles himself hath not only (in show at least) openly aided the French Protestants at Ree and Rochelle against their King who warred on them; the Germane Princes against the Emperor; the Hollanders, and Prince of Orange, (to whose Son he hath married his elstest Daughter) against the Spaniard, and entered into a solemn League with them, (which he could not have done in point of Law, Justice, Honor, Conscience, had they been Rebells or Traitors, for standing on their guards, and making defensive Wars only for their own and their Religions preservation;) but likewise by two several public Acts of Parliament, the one in England, the other in Scotland, declaring, the Scots late taking up Arms against him and his evil Counselors, in defense of their Religion, Laws, Privileges, to be no Treason, nor Rebellion; and them to be his true and loyal Subjects (notwithstanding all aspersions cast upon them by the Prelatical and Popish Party) because they had no ill or disloyal intention at all against his Majesty's Person, Crown, and Dignity, but only a care of their own preservation, and the redress of th • se Enormities, Pressures, grievances in Church and State, which threatened desolation unto both. If then their seizing of the Kings Fortes, Ammunition, Revenues, and raising an Army for the foresaid ends, hath by his Majesty himself, and his two Parliaments of England and Scotland, been resolved and declared to be no Treason, no Rebellion at all against the King; by the very same, (or better reason, all circumstances duly pondered) our Parliaments present taking up Arms and making a Defensive War for the ends aforesaid, neither is, nor can be adjudged Treason or Rebellion, in point of Law or Justice.

In fine, the King himself in his Answer to the 19. Propositions of both Houses, June 3. 1642. Confesseth, and calleth God to witness: That all the Rights of his Crown are vested in him for his Subjects sake: That the Prince may not make use of his high and perpetual power to the hurt of those, for whose good he hath it; nor make use of the name of public Necessity, for the gain of his private Favorites and Followers, to the detriment of his people; That the House of Commons may impeach those, who for their own ends, though countenanced with any surreptitiously gotten Command of the King, have violated that Law, which he is bound (when he knows it) to protect, and to protection of which they were bound to advise him, at least, Not to serve him in the Contrary (let the Cavalleers and others consider this:) and the Lord's being trusted with a Iudiciary power, are an excellent screene and bank between the King and people, to assist each against any Incroachments of the other; and by just Judgments to preserve that Law, which ought to be the Rule of everyone of the three. Therefore the power Legally placed in both Houses, Being more then sufficient to prevent and restrain the power of Tyranny; by his Majesty's own Confession; it must needs be such a power as may legally enable both Houses, (when Arms are taken up against them, by the King or any other, to subvert Laws, Liberties, Religion, and introduce an Arbitrary government;) not only to make Laws, Ordinances, and Assessements, but likewise to take up Arms to defend and preserve themselves, their Laws, Liberties, religion, and to prevent, restrain all forces raised against them, to set up Tyranny; else should they want not only a more then sufficient, but even a s • fficient necessary power, to prevent and restrain the power of Tyranny; which being once in arms cannot be restraned, and prevented, repulsed, with Petitions, Declarations, Laws, Ordinances, or any Paper Bulwarks and Fortifications, or other such probable or possible means within the Parliaments power, but only by Arms and Militarie Forces, as reason and experience in all Ages manifest.

From all which pregnant punctual domestic Authorities and resolutions of Ancient, Moderne and present times, I presume I may infallibly conclude; That the Parliaments present taking up necessary Defensive Arms, is neither, Treason, nor Rebellion, in judgment of Law; but a just and lawful Act, for the public benefit and preservation of King, Kingdom, Parliament, Laws, Liberties, Religion; and so neither their General, Soldiers, nor any person whatsoever employed by them in this War, or contributing anything towards its maintenance, are or can be Legally indicted, prosecuted, or in any manner proceeded against as Traitors, Rebels, Delinquents against the King or Kingdom; and that all Proclamations, Declarations, Indictments, or proceedings against them, or any of them, as Traitors, Rebels, or Delinquents, are utterly unlawful, iniust, and ought to be reversed as mere Nullities.

It would be an infinite tedious labor for me to relate, what Civilians and Canonists have written concerning War, and what War is just and lawful, what not: In brief, they all generally accord; That no War may or ought to be undertaken cut of covetousness, lust, ambition, cruelty, malice, desire of hurt, revenge, or for booty: propter praedam enim militare peccatum est; Whence Joh; Baptist, Luke 3. 14. gave this answer to the Soldiers who demanded of him, what shall we do? Do violence to no man: neither accuse any man falsely; and be content with your wages. Ne dum sumptus quaeritur, praedo grassetur. Which proves the Wars of our plundering, pillaging Cavalleers altogether sinful and unjust: And that such a War only is just, which is waged for the good and necessary defense of the Common-wealth, by public Edict or consent; or to regain something, which is unjustly detained or taken away, and cannot otherwise be acquired: or to repel or punish some injury; or to curb the insolency of wicked men, or preserve good men from their unjust oppressions; which Wars ought only to be undertaken out of a desire of Peace; as they prove out of Augustine, Gregory, Isidor Hispalensis, and others. In one word, they all accord; That a necessary defensive War to repulse an Injury, and to preserve the State, Church, Republic, Freedomes, Lives, Chastities, Estates, Laws, Liberties, Religion, from unjust violence is, and ever hath been lawful by the Law of Nature, of Nation; yea, By all Laws whatsoever, and the very dictate of Reason: And that a • n • cessary defensive War is not properly a War, but a mere Defense, against an unlawful Violence; And there • fore m • st of necessity be acknowledge lawful; because directly opposite to, and the only remedy which G • d and Nature have given men against T • rannicall and unjust invasions, which are both s •• n • full and unlawful. And so can be no Treason, no Rebellion, no crime at all, thou •• our Princes or Parents be the unjust assail • nts. Of which see more in Hugo Gro • ius, de Iure Belli, l. 2. c. 1.

I shall close up the Civillians and C • no ••• s Opinions touching the lawfulness of a Defensive War, with the words o • A • beric •• • entilis, Professor of Civil Law in the University of Oxford, in Queen Elizabeth's Rain, Who in his learned Book, De Jure Belli & Pacis, Dedicated to the most illustrious Robert Devoreux Earl of Essex; (Father to the Parliaments present Lord General:) determines thus, Lib. 1. ca • 13 pag. 92. &c.

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

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

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

First, that this is no part of the question in dispute. Whether the Parliament, or any Subjects who soever, may actually disobey, or violently with force of Arms resist the Kings, or any other lawful Magistrates just commands, warranted either by God's Word, or the Laws of England? it being out of controversy, readily subscribed by all of both sides; that Such commands ought not so much as to be disobeyed, much less forcibly resisted but cheerfully submitted to, and readily executed for Conscience sake, Rom. 13. 1. to 6. 1 Pet. 2. 13, 14. Tit. 3. 1. Hebr. 13. 17. Josh. 1. 16, 17. 18. Ezra. 7. 26. Eccles. 8 2, 3, 4, 5. the only thing these objected Scriptures prove, which come not near the thing in question, though our Opposites most rely upon them.

Secondly, Neither is this any branch of the dispute: Whether Subjects may lawfully rise up, or rebel against their Prince, by way of Muteny, Faction, or Sedition, without any just, or lawful public ground; or for every trifling injury, or provocation offered them by their Prince? Or whether private men, for personal wrongs (especially where their lives, chastities, livelihoods are not immediately endangered, by actual violent, unjust assaults) may in point of Conscience, lawfully resist, or rise up against their Kings, or any other lawful Magistrates? Since all disavow such tumultuous Insurrections and Rebellions in such cases: yet this is all which the oft objected Examples of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, with other Scriptures of this Nature, do or can evince.

Thirdly, nor is this any parcel of the Controversy. Whether Subjects may lay violent hands upon the persons of their Princes, wittingly or willingly to deprive them of their Lives or Liberties, especially, for private Injuries; or in cold blood, when they do not actually nor personally assault their lives or chastities; or for any public misdemeanors, without a precedent sentence of Imprisonment, or death against them given judicially, by the whole States or Realms, where they have such Authority to araigne and judge them? For all unanimously disclaim, yea abominate such Traitorous practices and Jesuitical Positions, as execrable and unchristian: yet this is all which the example of David's not offering violence to King Saul: the 1 Sam. 24. 3. to 22. cap. 26. 2. to 25. 2 Sam. 1. 2. to 17. or that perverted Text of Psal. 105. 15. ( the best Artillery in our Adversaries Magazines) truly prove.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secondly, That resistance which is warranted by direct Precedents recorded, approved in Scripture even by God himself, must questionless be lawful in case of co • science: But the resistance even of Kings, their highest Magistrates, officers in the execution of their unjust Commands is thus warranted. Therefore, doubtless, it must be lawful in point of Conscience. The Minor (only questionable) is thus confirmed. First, by the notable example of the Prophet Elijah, 2 Kings 1. 2. to 16. who sending back King Ahaziah his Messengers (sent by him to inquire of Baal • zebub the God of Ekron, whether he should recover of his disease ) with an harsh Message to the King, contrary to his Command, which they disobeyed; thereupon this King, in an angry fume, sent two Captains with 50. men apiece, one after another, to apprehend the Prophet for this affront; (as Josephus, with other Interpreters accord,) who coming with their forces to him, said; Thou man of God, the King hath said, come down quickly. To whom he successively answered: If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from Heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty; And there came fire from heaven thereupon, and consumed two Captains and their fifties: but the third Captain and his fifty, who humbled themselves to the Prophet, and begged the sparing of their lives, were spared; the Angel of the Lord bidding the Prophet to go down with them to the King, and not be afraid. From which Text it is infallible, even by a divine Miracle from heaven, doubled by God himself; That it is lawful for Subjects in some cases, to resist the unjust violence of the Soldiers and Captains of their Kings though armed with their Regal Commands. Secondly, by the History of the Prophet Elisha, 2 Kings 6. 31, 32, 33. Who when King Joram (his Sovereign) had sworn unjustly in his fury; God do so to me and more also, if the head of Elisha shall stand on him this day; and thereupon sent a Messenger before him to Elisha his house to take away his head; the Prophet was so far from submitting to this Instrument of his; that he Commanded the Elders sitting then with him in the house, to look when the Messenger came, and shut the door, and Hold him fast at the Door, though the sound of his Masters feet (the King) were behind him; whom he stiles, the son of a Murderer. Might these two eminentest Prophets thus openly resist the Captains, Soldiers, and unjust Executioners of their Princes, with a good Conscience; and may not others lawfully do the like? No doubt they may. Thirdly, (If I be not much mistaken) this kind of resistance is warranted even by Christ himself, and his Apostles: For a little before his Apprehention, Christ uttered this speech unto his Disciples, Luke 22. 36, 37, 38. But Now, he that hath no Sword, let him sell his garment and buy one, &c.—And they said, Lord, behold, here are two Swords. And he said unto them, it is enough. Why would Christ have his Disciples buy Swords now, unless it were for his and their own better Defense, being the time when he was to be apprehended. Soone after this Judas and his Band of men sent from the High Priests, with Swords and Staves came to seize upon Christ. Which when they who were about him saw what would follow: They said unto him; Lord, shall we smite with the Sword? His commanding them to buy Swords now, was sufficient ground for this question, and intimation enough, that they might now use them: whereupon Christ giving no negative answer; One of them which were with Jesus (and John directly saith it was Peter ) smote a servant of the High Priest (whose name was Malchus ) and cut off his right ear. Hereupon Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye Thus Far: So Luke; Mark relates no answer at all reprehending this fact: John records his speech to Peter thus. Then, said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy Sword into the sheath. The Cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink? To which Matthew adds, thinkinst thou that I cannot pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more then twelve Legions of Angels? But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? So that the reason why Christ bade Peter thus to put up his sword; was not because he thought defense of himself, and Peters smiting now altogether unlawful in it self; but only inconsistent with God's present providence, which it should seem to cross. Christ was now by God's eternal decree, and the Scriptures prediction, (which must be necessarily fulfilled) to suffer death upon the Cross for our iniquities: should Peter then, with the other Disciples have totally resisted his apprehention at this time, and proceeded still to smite with the Sword as they began, till they had rescued our Savior, he could not then have suffered, nor the Scriptures be fulfilled: had it not been for this special reason (rendered by Christ himself, to clear all scruples against the Lawfulnesse of self-defense in such cases,) Peter might still have used his sword to rescue his Master from these Catchpoles violence; and if he and his fellows had been too weak to withstand them, Christ was so far from imagining that he might not have lawfully defended himself; that he informs them, he could (and would no doubt) have presently commanded whole Legions of Angels from heaven, by his Fathers approbation, to rescue him from unjust violence. And his Speech to Pilate, after his taking, plainly, justifies the lawfulness of such a forcible defense with Arms to preserve a man's life from unjust execution: John 18. 36 If my Kingdom were of this world, Then would my Servants fight (in my Defense and Rescue) that I should Not be delivered to the Jews: but now my kingdom is not from hence. All which considered, clearly justifies, the Lawfulnesse of resisting the Kings, or higher Powers Officers, in cases of apparent unjust open violence or assaults; and withal answers one grand argument against resistance from our Savior's present Example: namely, Christ himself made no resistance when he was unjustly apprehended; Ergo, Christians his Followers (Ergo, no Kings, no Magistrates too, as well as Christ the King of Kings, and Lord of Lord's, for they are Christians as well as subjects;) ought not to make any forcible resistance of open violence: Which argument is a mere inconsequent; because the reason why Christ resisted not these Pursevants, and High Priests Officers, was only, that his Fathers decree, and the Scriptures foretelling his Passion might be fulfilled, as himself resolves; not because he deemed resistance Vnlawfull, which he even then approved, though he practiced it not, as these Texts do fully prove.

Fourthly, The lawfulness of a defensive War, against the invading Forces of a Sovereign, is warranted by the example of the City Abel; which stood out and defended it self against Joab, David's General, and his Forces, when they besieged and battered it; till they had made their peace, with the head of Sheba who fled into it for shelter, 2 Sam. 20. 14. to 23. And by that of Ester, Ch. 8. 8. to 17. chap: 9. 1. to 17. pertinent to this purpose. Where Haman having gotten the Kings Decree, to be sent unto all Provinces for the utter extirpation of the whole Nation of the Jews, the King after Haman's Execution (through God's great mercy, and Mordecai's and Queen Esters diligence) to prevent this bloody massacre by their Enemies, granted to the Jews in every City, by Letters under his Seal,

Loe here a Defensive war, justified, and granted lawful, by the Kings own Letters to the Jews, against their enemies, who by former Charters from him, had Commission wholly to extirpate them. Neither had this license of the King in point of Conscience, been lawful, had their defense and resistance of the Kings former Commission been wholly unlawful. And the reason of the Kings grant to them, to resist and slay their Enemies, that would assault them; was not simply, because their resistance without it, and standing for their lives, had been unlawful, by reason of the Kings first unjust Decree, which they ought not in Conscience to submit to, without repugnancy; But only to enable the Jews, then Captives, and scattered abroad one from another in every Province, with more convenience, security, boldness, and courage now to join their forces together, to resist their malicious potent enemies; to daunt them the more thereby; Nature it self, yea, and all Laws in such a bloody National Butchery as this, without any just cause at all, both taught and enabled everyone of the Jews, to stand for his life, his Nations, Religions, preservation, even to the last drop of blood. Therefore the Letters of the King did not simply enable them to resist their enemies, which they might have done without them; but give them Authority to destroy, and slay the Wives and little children of their Enemies, and to take the spoil of them for a prey; which they refused to do, because they deemed it unjust, notwithstanding the Kings permission and concession, which as to these particulars, was illegal, and more then he could justly grant. This general National resistance of God's own people then of their assaulting cruel Enemies, even among Strangers, in the land of their Captivity under a foreign Enemy, with the former and other following precedents, will questionless more then conjecturally prove, if not infallibly resolve, The lawfulness of a necessary Defensive War, and opposition by free Subjects, against their Kings assailing Forces which seeks their ruin, though armed with their Kings Commission, and that without any Ordinance of Parliament authorising them to resist, much more then, when enabled to oppose them by Ordinances of both Houses; as the Jews were to resist and slay their enemies by this Kings Letters and Authority.

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

Fourthly, it is confessed by all men, (yea those who are most intoxicated with an Anabaptistical spirit, condemning all kind of war, refusing to carry Arms to defend themselves against any Enemies, Thieves, or Pirates) that it is lawful not only passively to resist their Kings unlawful Commands, and invading Forces, but likewise by flight, hiding, or other policies, to evade and prevent their violence; which is warranted not only by Moses, David's, and Elijah's, their several flights from the violence of the Egyptians, Saul, and Jezebel, who sought their lives; but likewise by Joseph, Mary, and Christ himself, who fled into Egypt to escape the hands and but chery of King Herod; by Christ's own direction to his Disciples Matth. 10. 23. But when they persecute you in this City, flee ye into another; and that Prediction of his Matth. 23. 34. Behold, I send unto you Prophets, and wise men, and Scribes, and some of them ye shall kill and crucify, and some of them shall you scourge in your Synagogues, and persecute them from City to City; which was really fulfilled. Acts 8. 3. 4. c. 9. 1 2. c, 11. 19. c. 13. 50, 51. c. 14. 1, to 24, c. 17. 1. to 16. c. 22. 42. c. 26. 11. 12. c. 9. 24, 25, 26. 2 Cor. 11. 32. 33. Rev. 12. 6. Of which read more in Tertullian his book De Fuga in persecutione. Hence then I argue thus. That unjust violence of Princes and their Armies, which Subjects with a safe conscience may decline and flee from, when as they want power, means, or convenience to resist it, they may no doubt lawfully resist even with force of Arms, when they have sufficient means and conveniences to resist, and cannot flee or submit thereto, without the public ruin: since the same justice and equity, which enables them by flight or stratagem to decline unjust assaults of a superior power, or its judgments, doth likewise enable them to escape and prevent it with resistance, when they cannot do it by flight or other policy: If then they may lawfully with a safe conscience hide, flee, or use lawful policies, to prevent the open injust violence of their kings and their Officers, when not guilty of any capital crime deserving censures; because by the very light of nature, and Law of Charity they are obliged to preserve themselves from unjust tyranny; and are no ways bound to subject themselves to the cruelty, the unjust assaults, or oppressions of others: then by the selfsame reason, they may lawfully with force of Arms defend themselves against such violent unjust attempts which they are no way obliged to submit unto, when as they cannot conveniently secure themselves and the public, but by such resistance, and should both betray their own, the public safety, and Religion (as the Subjects and Parliament should now do) in case they did not resist by force of Arms to the utmost of their power: and become worse than. Infidels, who have even thus oft provided for their own and the Republickes security.

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

Sixthly, all will readily grant it lawful in case of Conscience, for subjects to resist a foreign enemy which invades them with force of Arms, though animated by the King himself to such invasion; and why so, but because they are their enemies, who would wrongfully deprive them of their native inheritance, Liberties, estates, and work them harm; upon which ground, we read in the 2 Kings 3. 21. That when the Moabites heard that the Kings of Israel, Judah and Edom came up to fight against them with a great Army, they gathered all that were able to put on armor, and upward to withstand them, and stood in the border; and when ever the Midianites, Philis • ines, Syrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Canaanites or other enemies came to assault the Jsraelites, they presently assembled together in Arms to encounter and repulse them, as the Histories of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, the Kings, Chronicles, and Nehemiah abundantly evidence, almost in every Chapter. If then Subjects may with a good Conscience resist forragin enemies on this ground alone; then likewise domestic foes and their Kings own Forces, when they become open enemies, to rob, kill, plunder, destroy them as inhumanely, as injuriously as the worst Forraigne foes, there being the self same ground for the lawfulness of resistance of the one as the other, and if the balance incline to one side more than other, an intestine enemy being more unnatural, unjust, hurtful, dangerous, and transgressing more Laws of the Realm (which oblige not strangers) than a Forraigner, and a Civil war being far worse, and more destructive than a Forraigne; the resistance of an homebred enemy, must be the more just and lawful of the two, even in point of Conscience.

Seventhly, The very Law of God both alloweth and commands all men, to resist their spiritual enemies, with spiritual Arms: Jam 4. 7. Resist the Devil and he will flee from you, otherwise he would easily subdue and destroy us. 1 Pet. 5. 8. 9. Be sober and vigilant, because your adversary the devil as a rearing Lyon walketh about seeking whom he may devour: whom resist steadfast in the faith, Ephes. 5. 10 to 19. Finally my brethren be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might: Put on the whole Armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle (or war) not against flesh and blood, but against Principalities, against powers, against the Rulers of the darkness of this world, against Spiritual wickedness (or wicked spirits) in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole Armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand: Stand therefore having your loins girded about with truth, &c. Above all taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked; And take the helmes of Salvation, and the sword of the spirit, which is the Word of God: Praying always with all prayer and supplication. Hence Christians are termed, Soldiers of Jesus Christ, and Christianity a warfare, against the world, the flesh, and Prince of the world, the Devil: 2 Tim. 2. 3, 4. 2 Cor. 10. 3. 1 Tim. 1. 18. I am. 41. 1 Pet. 2. 11. Rom. 7. 23. 2 Cor. 10. 4. 1 Cor. 9 7, I say 41. 2. Rev. 12. 7. 17. In which warfare, we must fight and resist even unto blood striving against sin, Heb. 12. 4. Vsing not only prayers and tears, but other spiritual weapons of war, mighty through God, able to cast down every high thing that exalteth it self, to bring into Captivitie every thought to the obedience of Christ, and to revenge all disobedience, 2 Cor. 10. 4. 5. 6. If then we may and must manfully resist, and fight against our Spiritual enemies, though Principalities, Powers, Rulers, wicked spirits in high Places; and the Prince of this world himself, the Devil, when they assaut and seek to devour our souls: then by the selfsame reason, we lawfully with a safe conscience, may, yea ought to resist, repulse our corporal enemies when they maliciously, unjustly, forcibly assault us, against all rules of Law, of Conscience, to murder, enslave, destroy our bodies, Souls, Religion, the Republic, which must be dearest to us, though they be Principalities, Powers, Rulers, wicked Spirits in high Places; yea Princes of this world; with all their under Officers and Instruments of cruelty, not only with prayers and tears, but corporal Arms and force, because they unnaturally, tyrannically, seek the destruction of our bodies, estates, Liberties, Republic, Religion, there being no inhibition in Scripture, not to resist the one or other, but infinite Texts authorising men, not only to resist, but war against, yea slay their malicious open enemies, until they be sub • ued or destroyed, Exod. 23. 22. 27. Levi. 26. 7. 8. Num. 24. 8. Deut. 20. throughout. Josh. c 8. to c. 13. 2 Sam. 22. 38. to 42. 1 Chron. 17. 8. 10. Esth. 9. 5. Neither do the Texts of Mat. 5 39. Luk. 6. 29. But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek • , turn to him the other also, and him that taketh away thy cloak, forbid not to take thy c • ate also; prohibit all actual resistance of public violence offered by enemies to our persons, goods, or lawful defensive wars; which precept (as is clear by the context, and resolved by Augustine, Gratian, Alensis, and ^f others) extends only to some private injuries and revenges, and to the inward patient preparation of the mind to suffer two injuries, rather thē maliciously to revenge a single one, especially in cases where we want ability to resist; not to an actual bearing of all gross outward injuries to our persons or estates, without resistance: which precept being given generally to all Christians; to Kings and Magistrates as well as Subjects, if it be strictly urged, prohibits Kings and Magistrates to resist the violence and injuries of the people, as much as the people, not to repulse the Arms violence and oppressions of their Princes and Governors: and that Text of James 5. 6. Ye have condemned and killed the just, and he doth not resist you, (which some think is meant of Christ alone) proves only, that some just men, and many Martyrs have been condemned and killed without resistance, as our Savior was; not that it is unlawful to resist an open enemy, thief or murderer, who comes to kill, rob, or plunder us against Law and Conscience. I read of Saint Andrew, that when the people can together in multitudes to rescue him out of the hands of a wicked man, and defend him from the injury of death, he teaching them both by word and example, exhorted them, not to hinder his martyrdom; yet the people lawfully rescued innocent Jonathan, from that unjust death which his Father King Saul twice vowed he should undergo: Some men's patient suffering death and injuries without resistance, is no better an argument, that all therefore must so suffer without opposition, then that all men ought to yield their purses up to high-way thieves, or their persons, goods, ships, to Turks and Pirates, without fight or resistance, because some, yea many have shamefully done it for want of courage when they were able to resist, and so have deservedly lost their purses, ships, goods, liberties, and become Turkish Gally-slaves, to the ruin of their estates, bodies, souls, which miseries by a manfull just defense, they might have easily prevented. All which considered; I see no ground in Scripture, nor reason, but that temporal enemies of all kinds which wrongfully invade our persons or estates by open force of Arms in a warlike manner, may be resisted with temporal weapons, as well as spiritual enemies with spiritual Arms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thirdly, personal unjust assaults and violence even of Kings themselves may in some cases lawfully be resisted by subjects; This Doctor Ferne himself acknowledgeth, Sect. 2. p. 9. Personal defense is lawful against the sudden (much more then against the premeditated) and illegal assaults of such Messengers of the King; yea, OF THE PRINCE HIMSELFE THUS FARRE, to ward his blows, to hold his hands and the like: not to endanger his person, not to return blows; no: for though it be natural to defend a man's self, yet the whole common-wealth is concerned in his person: the king therefore himself, (much more in his Cavaliers) may thus far at least safely be resisted in point of conscience. And that he may be so indeed is manifest by two pregant Scripture examples, The first is that of King Saul, 1 Sam 14. 38. to 46. where Jonathan and his Armor-bearer, routing the Philistines whole Army, violated his Father Saul's command, of which he was wholly ignorant in taking a little honey one the end of his stick in the pursuit; hereupon king Saul, most rashly and unjustly vowed twice one after another, to put him to death: whereupon the people much discontented with this injustice, were so far from submitting to the Kings pleasure in it, that they presently said to the king: shall Jonathan die, who hath wrought so great Salvation in Israel? God forbid: As the Lord liveth there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground, So the people, RESCVED JONATHAN that he died not; though he were not only King Saul's Subject, but Son too. Indeed it appears not in the Text, that Saul offered any violence to Jonathan's person, or the people to Saul's: and it may be the people's peremptory vow and unanimous resolution to defend Jonathan, from this unjust sentence of death against him, made Saul desist from his vowed bloody intendment: but the word rescued, with other circumstances in the story, seem to intimate, that Jonathan was in hold to be put to death, and that the people forcibly rescued him, out of the executioners hands. However, certainly their vow and speeches declare, that if Saul himself or any other by his commanded had assaulted Jonathan to take away his life, they would have forcibly resisted them and preserved his life, though with loss of their own, believing they might lawfully do it, else they would not have made this resolute vow; nor could they have performed it, had Saul willfully proceeded, but by a forcible rescue and resistance of his personal violence. The other is that of king Uzziah, 2 Chron. 27. 16. to 22. who presumptuously going into the Temple against God's Law, to burn incense on the Altar, Azariah the high Priest, and with him fourscore Priests of the Lord, that were valiant men went in after him, and WITHSTOOD (or resisted) Uzziah the king; and said unto him; It appertaineth not unto thee Uzziah to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the Priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn insence: go out of the Sanctuary for thou hast trespassed, neither shall i • be for thine honor from the Lord God. Then Uzziah was wroth, and had a censor in his hand to burn incense, and whiles he was wroth with the Priests, the Leprosy rose up in his forehead: And Azariah, and all the Priests looked upon him, and behold he was Leprous in his forehead: AND THEY THRVST HIM OUT FROM THENCE; yea himself hasted also to go out, because the Lord had smitten him. If then these Priests thus actually resisted King Uzziah in this sinful Act, thrusting him perforce out of the Temple when he would but offer incense; much more might they, would they have done it, had he violently assaulted their persons. If any king shall unjustly assault the persons of any private Subjects, men or women, to violate their lives or chastities (over which they have no power) I make no doubt, that they may and ought to be resisted, repulsed, even in point of conscience, but not slain; though many kings have lost their lives, upon such occasions: as Rodoaldus the 8. king of Lumbardy Anno 659. being taken in the very act of adultery by the adulteresses husband, was slain by him without delay; and how kings attempting to murder private Subjects unjustly, have themselves been sometimes wounded, and casually slain, is so rise in stories, that I shall forbear examples: concluding this with the words of Josephus, who expressly writes. That the King of the Israelites (by God's express Law, Deut. 17.) was to do nothing without the consent of the high Priest and Senate, nor to multiply money and horses over much, which might easily make him a contemner of the Laws; and if he addicted himself to these things more than was fitting. HE WAS TO BE RESISTED, least he became more powerful then was expedient for their affairs.

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

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

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

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

Fourthly, those injuries which Allies and other neighbor States or Princes may with good Conscience repulse with Arms from Subjects wrongfully oppressed, invaded tyrannically by their Sovereigns, or their wicked Instruments, at, or without the Subjects entreaty, when they are unable to relieve themselves: no doubt the Subjects themselves, if able, may with better reason, and as good Conscience resist and repel; because every man is nearer, and more obliged to defend and preserve himself and those of his own Nation, Religion, blood, then strangers are, and may with less public danger, inconvenience, and more speed effect it, then Foreigners: but Allies and Forraigne Neighbor States and Princes, as Gratian (o • t of the 5. Council of Carthage; Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, Anastatius, Calistus and other) Albericus Gentilis, John Bodin, ^a Huga Grotius, and Generally all •• nonists, Casuists, Scho • lemen accord, may in many cases with good conscience, by for • of Arms repulse from Subjects wrongfully oppressed, invaded, and tyrannically abused, the injuries offered them by their Sovereigns; and that either at, and in some cases without the Subjects entreaty: Which they prove by Moses his slaying the Egyptian that oppressed the Hebrew. Exod. 2. 11. to 15. by Joshua his aiding of the Gibeonites against the five Kings that made war against them, Josh. 10. by the example of Jehoshaphat, 1 Kin. 22. 2 Kings 3. Of the chief. Captains securing Paul with a gard of Soldiers against the Jews who had vowed his death, Acts 23. by Abraham's rescuing Lot, Gen. 14. by sundry ancie • t and late Examples in story. Therefore Subjects themselves no doubt if able, may with good reason and conscience, lawfully resist, and repel their Princes invading Forces, though accompanied, assisted with his personal presence.

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

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

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

The first out of the Old Testament, is that of Numb. 16. Korah, Dathan, and Abiram for their insurrection against that very divine Authority which God himself had delegated to Moses and Aaron, without any injury or injustice at all once offered to them or any assault upon them. Ergo (mark the Non-sense of this argumentation) no Subjects may lawfully take up mere necessary defensive Arms in any case to resist the bloody Tyrannie, Oppression, and outrages of wicked Princes, or their Cavalleires, when they make war upon them to destroy or enslave them.

An Argument much like this in substance. No man ought to rise up against an honest Officer or Captain in the due execution of his Office, when he offers him no injury at all. Therefore he ought not in conscience to resist him when he turns a thief or murderer, and felloniously assaults him, to rob him of his purse, or cut his throat. Or, private men must not causelessly mutiny against a lawful Magistrate for doing justice and performing his duty: Ergo the whole Kingdom in Parliament may not in Conscience resist the Kings Captains and Cavalleeres, when they most unnaturally and impiously assault them to take away their Lives, Liberties, Privileges, Estates, Religion, oppose and resist justice, and bring the whole Kingdom to utter desolation. The very recital of this argument is an ample satisfactory refutation of it, with this addition. These seditious Levites Rebelled against Moses and Aaron, only because God himself had restrained them from meddling with the Priests Office which they would contemptuously usurp, and therefore were most severely punished by God himself, against whose express Ordinance they Rebelled: Ergo, the Parliament and Kingdom may in no case whatsoever, though the King be bent to subvert God's Ordinances, Religion, Laws, Liberties, make the least resistance against the king or his invading forces, under pain of Rebellion, High Treason, and eternal condemnation, This is Doctor Fernes and some others, Bedlam Logic, & Divinity.

The next is this, Thou shalt not revile the God's, nor curse the Ruler of thy people, Ex. 22. 28. Eccl. 10. 20. Curse not the King no not in thy thought, and curse not the rich in thy bed-Chamber; ( which is well explained by Prov. 17. 26. It is not good to strike Princes for equity.) Ergo it is unlawful for the Subjects to defend themselves against the Kings Popish depopulating Cavaliers.

I answer, the first text pertains properly to Judges and other sorts of Rulers, not to Kings, not then in being among the Israelites: the second, to rich men as well as Kings. They may as well argue then from these texts: that no Judges nor underrulers, nor rich men whatsoever, though never so unjust or wicked, may or ought in conscience to be resisted in their unjust assaults, Riots, Robberies, no though they be bent to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties: as that the King and his Soldiers jointly or severally considered, may not be resisted: yea, these acute disputants may argue further by this new kind of Logic: Christians are expressly prohibited to curse or revile any man whatsoever, under pain of damnation, Rom. 12. 14. Mat. 5. 44. Levite. 19 14. Numb. 23. 7. 8. 2 Sam. 16. 9. Levite. 20. 9. c. 24 P 1. 14. 23. Levite. 20. 9. Prov. 20. 20. 1 Cor. 6. 10 1 Cor. 4. 12. 1 Pet. 2. 23. Jude 9. Ergo, we ought to resist no man whatsoever, (no not a thief that would rob us, cut-throat Cavaliers that would murder us, lechers that would ravish us) under pain of damnation. What pious profitable Doctrine, think you, is this: All cursings and railings are simply unlawful in themselves: all resistance is not so, especially that necessary we now discourse of, against unlawful violence to ruin Church and State. To argue therefore, all resistance is simply unlawful, because cursing and reviling (of a different nature) are so, is ill Logic, and worse Divinity. If the objectors will limit their resistance, (to make the Argument sensible,) and propose it thus: All cursing and reviling of Kings and Rulers for executing justice impartially (for so is the chief intendment of the place objected, delinquents being apt to clamour against those who justly censure them) is unlawful; Ergo the forcible resisting of them in the execution of justice and their lawful authority is unlawful: the sequel I shall grant, but the Argument will be wholly impertinent, which I leave to the Objectors to refine.

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

The Objector puts no Ergo, or conclusion to it, because it concludes nothing at all to purpose, but only this. Ergo, The King and Cavalleeres must lay down their Arms and swords, because God never gave them any special commission to take them up. Or, Ergo, no man but God must wear a sword, at least of revenge; and • hither the kings and Cavalleers Offensive, or the Parliaments mere Defensive sword, be the sword of vengeance and malice, let the world determine, to the Objectors shame.

The fourth is, from Eccles. 8. 2. 3. 4. I council thee to keep the Kings Commandment and that in regard of the Oath of God: Be not hasty to go out of his sight, stand not in an evil thing; for he doth whatsoever pleaseth him: where the word of a king is there is power; and who may say unto him, what dost thou?

This Text administers the Opposites a double Argument, The first is this; All the Kings Commands are to be kept of all his Subjects, by virtue of the Oaths of supremacy, alleigance, and the late protestation including them both: Ergo, by virtue of these Oaths we must not resist his Cavalleeres, but yield our thoates to their swords, our purses and estates to their rapines, our chastities to their Lecheries, our Liberties to their Tyrannies, our Laws to their lusts, our Religion to their Popish Superstition and Blasphemies, without any opposition, because the king hath oft commanded us not to resist them. But seeing the Oath and Law of God, and those oaths of ours, obleige us only, to obey the Kings just legal commands and no other, not the Commands and lusts of evil Counselors and Soldiers, this first Argument must be better pointed ere it will wound our cause.

The second, this: The king may lawfully do whatsoever pleaseth him Ergo, neither are He, or his Forces to be resisted. To which I answer, that this verse relates only unto God, the next antecedent; who only doth and may do what he pleaseth, and that both in heaven and earth, Psal. 135. 6. Psal. 115. 3 Isaiah 46. 10. not to Kings who neither may nor can do what they please in either, being bound both by the Laws of God, man, and their Coronation Oaths (perchance the oath of God here meant, rather then that of supremacy or alleigance) to do only what is lawful and just, not what themselves shall please. But admit it meant of Kings, not God: First the text saith not, that a king may lawfully do what he pleaseth: but he doth whatsoever pleaseth him: Solom • n himself committed idolatry, built Temples for Idolatrous worship, served his idolatrous wives God's, married with many idolatrous wives, grievously oppressed his people, &c. for which God threatened to rent the kingdom from himself, as he did the ten Tribes from his son, for those sins of his: David committed adultery, and willfully numbered the people; and what King Jeroboam, Manasseh, Ahab, other wicked Kings have done, out of the pleasure and freedom of their lawless wills, to the infinite dishonor of God, the ruin of themselves, their posterities, Kingdoms, is sufficiently apparent in Scripture; was all therefore just, lawful, unblameable, because they did herein whatsoever they pleased, not what was pleasing to God? If not, as all must grant: then your foundation fails; that Kings may lawfully do whatsoever they will; and Solomon's words must be taken all together not by fragments; and these latter words coupled with the next preceeding; Stand not in an evil matter: and then Paul's words will well interpret his, Rom. 13. 4. But if thou do that which is evil be afraid, for he beareth not the sword in vain, for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon them that do evil. So that the genuine sense of the place is, and must be this. Stand not in an evil matter, for the king path an absolute power to do whatsoever he pleaseth, in way of justice to punish thee, if thou continue obstinate in thy evil courses; to pardon thee, if thou confess, submit, and crave pardon for them. Ergo, the king and his Cavalleeres have an absolute power to murder, plunder, destroy his Subjects, subvert Religion, and he and his Forces must not herein be resisted, is an ill consequent from such good premises.

The third is this: Where the word of a King is, there is power, and who may say unto him what dost thou? (that is, expostulate with, censure him for doing justly, as Job 34. 17. 18. 19. expound it,) Ergo the king or his Forces may not be resisted in any case: they might rather conclude. Therefore neither Kingdom nor Parliament, nor any Subject or person whatsoever ought to demand of the king, to what end, or why he hath raised Forces and Armed Papists against the Parliament, and Protestant Religion? These Court-Doctors might as truly conclude from hence: If the king should command us to say Mass in his Chapel, or our Parishes, to adorn Images, to turn professed Mass-priests, &c. to vent any Erronious Popish Doctrines; to pervert the Scriptures to support Tyrannie and lawless cruelty: we must and will (as some of us do) cheerfully obey; for where the word of a King is, there is power, and we may not say unto him, what dost thou? If a King should violently ravish matrons, defloure virgins; unnaturally abuse youth, cut all his Subjects throats, fire their houses, sack their Cities, subvert their liberties; and (as Bellarmine puts the case of the Popes absolute irresistible authority) send millions of souls to hell; yet no man under pain of damnation, may or ought to demand of him, Domine cur ita facis? Sir, what do you? But was this the holy Ghosts meaning think you, in this place? If so, then Nathan was much to blame for reprehending king David's Adultery. Azariah and the 40. Priests who withstood King Uzziah when he would have offered incense, on the incense Altar, and thrust him out of the Temple, telling him, it pertaineth not to thee Uzziah, to burn incense to the Lord, &c. Were no less then Traitors. John the Baptist was much over-seen to tell King Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brothers wife. The Prophet who sharply reprehended Amaziah for his Idolatry and new altar, 2 Chron 25. 15. 16. was justly checked by the king. Eliiah was to be rebuked, for telling Ahab so plainly of his faults, and sending such a harsh message to King Ahaziah; Elisha much to be shent for using such harsh language to King Jehoram, 2 Kings 3. 13. 14. yea Samuel and Hanani deserved the strappado for telling King Saul, and Asa, That they had done foolishly, 1 Sam. 13. 3. 2 Chron. 15. 9. The meaning therefore of this Text, so much mistaken, (unless we will censure all these Prophets, and have Kings not only irresistible but irreprehensible for their wickedness) is only this: No man may presume to question the kings just actions, warranted by his lawful royal power: (this text being parallel with Rom. 13. 1. 2. 3. 4.) What then? Ergo, None must question or resist his, or his Cavalleers unjust violence and proceedings, (not the Parliament the supremest Judicature and Sovereign Power in the Kingdom) is a ridiculous consequence: yet this is all this Text doth contribute to their present dying bad cause.

The 5. is that usually objected Text of Psal. 105. 14, 15. Touch not mine anointed. Ergo the King and his Cavaliers must not be so much as touched nor resisted, I wonder they did not as well argue, Ergo none must henceforth kiss his Majesty's hand (since it cannot be done without touching him,) neither must his Barber trim him, nor his Bedchamber-men attire him, for fear of high Treason in touching him: And the Cavaliers must not henceforth be arrested for their debts, apprehended for their robberies and murders; neither must the Surgeon dress their wounds, or pock-soars, or otherwise touch them, (so dangerous is it to touch them, not out of fear of infection, but) for fear of transgressing this sacred Text, scarce meant of such unhallowed God-dammee • . Such conclusions had been more literal and genuine then the first.

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

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

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

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

But these Texts, if duly pondered, will warrant neither of these conclusions. First then, I answer, that Saul's bare annointing, considered as an external Ceremony to declare him a lawful King, did not, could not add any immunity to his person against David's, or any other Subjects just violent resistance, as the premised reasons manifest; but it was only his royal Sovereign Office conferred on him by God and the people, to which his external annointing by Samuel was but a preparation That which made Saul, with other his successors, a king, was not his bare annointing. For Saul himself was anointed by Samuel, before he was made and chosen King, not when he was made King. So David, Hazael, selu, with others, were anointed before they were actual Kings, and many of their Successors by descent, were real kings before they were anointed; some of them being not anointed at all for ought we read: therefore their unction made them not kings, since neither simply necessary, nor essential to their being kings. Nor did Saul's annointing only, preceding his Regality, make his person sacred, or any other kings persons; for then it would follow, That if Saul had not been actually anointed, or had continued king for some years without this annointing, then David in such a case might lawfully have slain him, without check of conscience, and that the persons of kings not at all anointed; and of hereditary kings before their Coronations, till they are anointed, should not be sacred, nor exempt from violence; which is both false and perilous to affirm; but it was his Sovereign Royal Authority over David (then his Son-in-law, Servant, Subject ) which restrained him from offering violence to his person. Soul then being thus privileged, not because he was anointed, but because he was an anointed king, and that not quatenus Anointed, but quatenus King; the true sense and genuine interpretation of these Texts must be, That Saul's person was sacred, exempt from his Subjects violence, not because he was anointed, as if that only did privilege him; but because he was a lawful king appointed by the Lord himself, the Lord's anointed, being but a periphrasis, or form of speech, wherein the Geremony of annointing, is used for the Regality, or kingly power it self, declared not conferred by annointing, and in plain words without any figure, it is put for, the Lord's King, that is, a King appointed by the Lord; in which sense God calls Christ my King; and David stiles himself ^x God's King. Saul's Royal Authority without his annointing, not his annointing, predestinating him to his Authority being the ground of this his immunity from David's violence. Secondly, Saul was anointed some space before he was made King, and David many year before he came to the Crown: I would then demand of any man; if Saul or David after their unction, and before their election and inauguration to the Crown had invaded or assaulted any of the people in an hostile manner, whether they might not have justly resisted, repulsed, yea slain them to in their own necessary defense? If not, then one Subject may not repulse the unjust violence of another in an elective kingdom, if by possibility he may after wards be chosen king, though for the present he be neither actually king nor Magistrate, but a Shepherd, as David was, Psal. 78. 70, 71. which I presume none will affirm, I am certain none can prove: If so, then it was not Saul's annointing but only his Royal Authority, which made David thus to spare his life, his person. So that our Opposites pressing this Argument only from his Annointing, is both false and idle, as all the premises demonstrate.

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

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

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

Thirdly, there is nothing in all these speeches, or the practice, or in David, pertinent to the case in dispute; for when David's men moved him to kill Saul, and would have risen up against him, to slay him, & David refused to act, or suffer his men to do it; neither Saul not any of his men did actually assault David or his followers, nor so much as once discover them; but Saul went casually to cover his feet into the Cave, where they lay hid; which done, he rose up and went on his way, not once espying David (though he cut off the skirt of his Robe privily ) nor any of his men with him. To argue therefore, That David and his men might not with a safe conscience stretch forth their hands and rise up against their Sovereign king Saul, to kill him thus in cold blood, when he assaulted them not, nor so much as thought of their being in the Cave, and went out of it quietly, not discovering them; Ergo, they might not, they would not in conscience have resisted, repulsed him, or his Forces, had they assaulted, or given them battle in the Cave, is a Non-sense Conclusion; just in effect the same with this. I may not resist or repulse one who assaulrs me not, Ergo, I may not resist one that actually assaults me to take away my life, or to beat, rob, wound me: What Logic, Reason, Law or Divinity is there in such an argument? So after this when Abishai said to David, God hath delivered Saul thine enemy into thy hand this day, now therefore let me smite him, I pray thee, with the spear, even to the earth at once, I will not smite him the second time: And David said to Abishai, Destroy him not, for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord's Anoynted (to wit, to slay him purposely, as Abishai intended) and be guiltless? The Text is express. That Saul and his men were then in their own Trenches, fast a sleep, because a deep sleep from the Lord was fallen upon them; David and Abishai were here the only affailants, they came into Saul's Trenches, he and his whole army were in so sound a sleep, that they came to Saul's own person, took away with them his Spear, and the Cruse or water from his Bolster, and departed, not being once discerned; No man resists, assaults, discovers them. To slay Saul thus in cold blood, without any assault or present provocation, and especially upon a private quartell, had been Treachery and impiety in a Son-in-Law, a Servant, a Subject a • uccessour; and to do it with the hazard of their own lives, had any of Saul's Army been awakened at the stroke Abishai would have given him. (as probably they might have been) they being but two, and within their enemies Trenches, in the midst of the Army, who might have easily and speedily slain them, had been rashness, indiscretion; their departure with the Spear and Cruse was more Heroicall, Loyall, prudential. To conclude therefore, as our Opposites do from this speech and example, That David thought it unlawful in point of Conscience for him or Abishai to murder his S • veraign Lord King Saul, when he and his men were thus fast asleep in the midst of their Trenches, offering them no wrong, making no actual assaults upon them; Ergo, they could not, would not justly with safe consciences have forcibly defended themselves against Saul and his Army, had they been assaulted by them in their own Trenches; is a transcendent absurdity, refuted by the very next words of David to Abishai at that instant, 1 Sam. 26. 10. And David said furthermore, As the Lord liveth, the Lord shall smite him, or his day shall come to die; or he shall DESCEND INTO BATTELL AND PERISH; which intimates, that if Saul would force him to a battle, then he might lawfully defend himself against his violence, though he might not murder him now in his sleep, when he did him no hard; and if he casually perished in the battle, it was Saul's own willful default, not his, who could not dissuade him by all this his fair carriage and sparing of his life, (when he had those two advantages to slay him) from his violent prosecution, nor yet succeed him in the Crown (as God had appointed and foretold) should he suffer him to murder him and his men in battle without resistance. Yea, David's earnestness to go with Achish and the Pallistines to the battle against Sanl, wherein he perished, 1 Sam. 2 • (unless we will tax Davide for a notable Hypocrite and dissembler) unanswerably eviden • eth, that he deemed it lawful to resist, to encounter Saul and his Forces in battle, not withstanding his person might chance to perish in the fight, though not to slay him treacheously, and basely upon the precedent advantages: And his slaying of that lying Amalekite who brought him tidings of Saul's death, reporting that himself had slain him, to gain a reward from David, he being then one of Saul's soldiers (as it seems) concludes only, that it was not lawful for any of Saul's own men to saly him, by his own command: Not that resistance of him in the open battle was unlawful in point of conscience. Other answer might be given to this Objection concerning David and Saul. As 1. that this difference was but private and personal between Saul and David, David being then Saul's private subject, Servant, Son in Law, not public between Saul his whole Parliament or Kingdom; now many things are unlawful to be done in private quarrels, which are just and honorable in public differences.

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

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

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

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

To which I must reply, first, That none of the Prophets did ever forbid resistance in such cases, under pain of Damnation, as our new Doctors do now; Ergo, it was lawful, because not prohibited. Secondly, that as none of the people were then inhibited to resist, so not dehorted from it: therefore they might freely have done it, had they had hearts and zeal to do it. Thirdly, Josephus resolves expressly, That by the very Law of God, Deuter. 17. If the King did contrary to that Law, multiply silver gold, and horses to himself, more then was fitting, the-Israelites might lawfully resist him, and were bound to do it, to preserve themselves from Tyrannie; Therefore no doubt they might have lawfully resisted their Kings Idolatry, cruelty oppressions. Fourthly, Hulderichus Zwingli, a famous Protestant Divine, with others, positively affirms, That the Israelites might not only lawfully resist, but likewise depose • he • r Kings for their wickednesses and Idolatries; yea, That all the people were justly punished by God, because they removed not their flagitious, idolatrous Kings and Princes out of their places, which he proves by Ierem 15. where after the four Plagues there recited, the Prophet subjoins the cause of them, saying, Verse 4. I will give them in fury to all the Kingdoms of the Earth; ( that is, I will stir up in fury all the kings of the earth against them ) because of Manasseh the son of Hezekiah king of Judah, for that which he did in Jerusalem. This Manasseh had committed many wickednesses by Idolatry and the stedding of innocent blood, as we may see in the one and twentieth Chapter of the second of the Kings; for which evils the Lord grievously punished the people of Israel: Manasseh shed overmuch innocent blood, until he had filled Jerusalem even to the mouth, with his sins wherewith he made Judah to sin, that it might do evil before the Lord: Therefore because Manasseh King of Judah did these most vile abominations, above all that the Amorites had done before him, and made the Land of Judah to sin in his undeanesse, therefore thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Behold, I will bring evil upon Jerusalem and Judah, that whosever shall hear, both his ears shall tingle &c. In sum, if the Jews had not thus permitted their King to be wicked WITHOUT PVNISMENT, they had not been so griev •• nsly punished by God. We ought to pull and crossed away even our eye that offends so a hand and foot, &c. If the Israelites had thus DE OSED Manassch by consent and suffrages of all, or the greatest part of the multitude; they had not been so grievessly punished of God. So Zwingli, with whom even B. Rilson himself in some sort accords who in de ending & interpreting his opinion, c • ntesseth, That it is a question among the Learned, What Sovereignty the whole people of Israel had over their Kings; confessing, that the people's resouing Jonathan that he died not, when Saul would have put him to d •• th, David's speech to the peo • le when he purposed to reduce the Ark, all the Congregations speech and carriage toward Rehoboam when they came to make him King, with the p • ople: speech to Jeremiah, Thou shalt die the death; have persuaded some, and might lead Zuingli • s to think that the people of Israel, notwithstanding they called for a King, yet RE • ERVED TO THEMSELVES SVFFICIENT AVTHORITY TO OVERRVLE THEIR KING, IN THOSE THINGS WHICH SEEMED EXPEDIENT AND NEEDFVLL FOR THE PVBLIKE WLLFARE; else God would not punish the people for the kings iniquity, which they must suffer, and not redress. Which opinion, if as Orthodox, as these learned Divines and Josephus aver it, not only quite ruins our Opposites Argument, but their whole Treatises and cause at once. But fifthly, I answer, that subjects not only by command of God's Prophets, but of God himself, and by his special approbation have taken up Arms against their Idolatrous Princes, to ruin them and their Posterities: A truth so apparent in Scripture, that I wonder our purblind Doctors discern it not: For did not God himself, notwithstanding his frequent (conditional) Promises to establish the Kingdom of Israel on David, Solomon and their Posterity; for Solomon's gross Idolatry ( occasioned by his Wives ) tell Solomon in express terms? Wherefore for as much as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my Covenant and my Statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely REND THE KINGDOM FROM THEE, and will give it to thy servant. Notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it, for David thy fathers sake; but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son. Did not the Prophet Abijah in pursuance hereof, rending Ierohoams garment into twelve pieces, tell him? Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, behold, I will rend the Kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee; And I will take the Kingdom out of his sons hand, and will give it unto thee, even ten Tribes; and I will take thee, and thou shalt reign according to all that thy soul desireth, and shalt be King over Israel; and I will for this afflict the Seed of David. ^y Yea, did not ALL ISRAEL upon Solomon's death, when Rehoboam his son refused to grant their just requests at their coming to Shechem to make him king, use this speech to the king, What Portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of less, to your Tents ô Israel: now see to thine own house David. Whereupon they departed and fell away from the house of David ever after, and made Iereboam King over all Israel. And doth not the Text directly affirm? Whenefore Rehoboam hearkened not unto the people, for the cause was from the Lord, that he might perform the saying which the Lord spake to Abijah unto Jeroboam, the son of Nebat. After which when Rehoboam raised a mighty Army to reduce the ten Tribes to obedience, the Word of the Lord came to Shemaiah the man of God. saying, Speak unto Rehoboam and all the house of Judah and Benjamin, Thus SAITH THE LORD, Ye shall not go up to fight against your brethren the children of Israel, return every man to his house; FOR THIS THING IS FROM ME; They hearkened therefore to the word of the Lord and returned to depart, according to the word of the Lord. Lo here a Kingdom quite rent a way from the very house of David; yea, a new King and kingdom erected by the People, by God's and his Prophets special direction, and approbation, for King Solomon's Idolatry. Who is such a stranger to the sacred Story, but hath ofttimes read, how God anointed Jehu King, of purpose to extirpate and out off the whole house of K. Ahab his Lard for his and Jezebels Idolatry and blood-shed, in flaying the Prophets, and unjustly executing Naboth for his Vineyard? in performance whereof he slew his Sovereign King Joram, Ahaziah King of Judah, Queen Jezebel, all Ahab's posterity, his great men, his Nobles, and all the Priests and Worshippers of Baal, till he left none remaining, according to the word of the Lord which he spake by his servant Elijah, 2 Kings c. 9. & 10. For which good service the Lord said unto Jehu, Because THOU HAST DONE WELL in executing that which is right in mine eyes, and hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was IN MINE HEART, thy children of the 4. generation, shall sit on the Throne of Israel. This fact therefore of his thus specially commanded, approved, rewarded by God himself, must needs be just and lawful, nor Treason, nor Rebellion in Jehu, unless the Opposites will charge God to be the author, approver, and rewarder of sin, of Treason.

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

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

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

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

2. The Gaulonites, as Josephus records, with other lews, being Abraham's seed, held it unlawful for them to yield any subjection or tribute to the Roman Emperors, or other Heathen Princes, reigning over them; whereupon they demanded this question of Christ himself, It is lawful to pay tribute to Caesar? Matth. 12. which error perehance spread itself into the Christian Church, by reason of Evangelical Liberty, grounded on John. 8. If the Son shall make you free, then are ye free indeed; Mat. 17. Then are the Children free; and Ro. 6. We are not under the Law, but under Grace. • o refell this mistake, the Apostle inserted these passages into this Epistle; Thus Soto, Calvin, Peter Martyr, Willet, and others. Whence nothing but this can be properly concluded, Neither the Prerog • tive of the • ews, not Liberty of Christians exempts them from due subjection to l • wfull he he • Magistrates, because they are God's Ordinance, Ergo, No Subjects can with safe conscience defend themselves in any case against the unjust invasions of Tytannicall Princes or their Armies. A palpable Inconsequent.

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

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

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

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

Secondly, because those who resist shall receive to themselves damnation, temporal or eternal, since they resist God's Ordinance, v. 2. But that subjects should be temporally and eternally damned, only for resisting tyrannical Magistrates or their Cavaliers, and that by authority from the Parliament, when they with armed violence most impiously set themselves to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberty, Property, and take away their lives, against all Laws of God and Man; for which they themselves incur both temporal and eternal damnation, is such a Paradox, as is no ways warranted by, but directly opposite to the Scripture. Therefore it must be intended only of resisting lawful Authority, and just commands.

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

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

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

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

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

Seventhly, the Apostle hereupon concludes, Vers. 5. Wherefore you must of necessity be subject not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. This conclusion as the word, Wherefore, demonstrates, being inferred from the premised reasons, extending only to 〈2 pages missing〉 extends to all civil Magistrates, as well inferior and subordinate, as superior, (and many stick not to strain it even to Ecclesiastical ones ) So Origen, Ambrose, Jerome, Remigius, Theodulus, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Primasius, Haymo, Rabanus Maurus, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Haymo, Aquinas, Anselm, Lyra, Bruno, Gorran, Hugo de Sancto Victore, Tostatus, Luther, Calvin, Erasmus, Melanchthon, Gualther, Musculus, Bucer, Hemingius, Ferus, Fayus, Soto, Alexander Alesius, Peter Martyr, Pareus, Beza, Piscator, Zwingli, Tollet, Willet, Wilson, Nacclantus, Snecanus, Vignerius, Wenerichius, Winckelman, Estius, Faber, Cornelius a Lapide, Salmeron, Catharinus, Guilliandus, Adam Sasbout with sundry others. This then being irrefragable, hereby it is most apparent; First, that no resistance of the higher powers is here prohibited, but only in the due and legal execution of their offices: For if any inferior Officers illegally endeavor to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, and unrightly govern the people, they may lawfully be resisted by them: For example, if a Major, Justice of Peace, Constable or other officer; extravagating from the common course of Law and Justice; shall with force of arms in a riotous manner assault any private man, or the whole City or Village where he lives, to beat, wound, kill, plunder, dispossess the inhabitants of their houses, goods, franchises, or assault them on the highway side, to take away their purses; in these and such like cases, both in point of Law and conscience he may not only be forcibly resisted, but repulsed, apprehended, battered, if not lawfully slain by the people, and proceeded against as a delinquent: The reason is, because these illegal unjust actions, are not only besides, without their Commissions, but directly contrary to their offices, and the Laws, which never gave them authority to act such injustice: yet they are higher Powers ordained of God, within this Text, and no way to be resisted in the due execution of their Offices according to Law. If then these inferior Officers may be thus forcibly resisted, repulsed, notwithstanding this Text, in such cases as these; then by the self same reason Kings and Emperors may be thus resisted too; since the Text extends indifferently to them both. Let then the objectors take their choice; either affirm, that no inferior lawful Officers whatsoever, may be forcibly resisted, by the people, or repulsed, arraigned censured for their misdemeanor, by virtue of this Text; which would bring an absolute Tyranny, Anarchy and confusion presently into the world, and make every Constable as great a Tyrant, Monarch as the grand Emperor of the Turks; or else confess, that this Text condemns not such resistance, even of Kings and Princes, when they forcibly war upon their Subjects to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, and ruin the republike; since it makes no distinction at all between the ones power and the others; but equally enjoins subjection, prohibits resistance unto both; and that only in just administration of their several authorities, not in the arbitrary unjust prosecutions of their wills and lusts.

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

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

For the second, Whether the Roman Emperor in Paul's time was the highest Sovereign power in the Roman State, or not? It is taken for granted by Doctor Ferne and other opposites, that he was, as a thing past doubt, the Senate and people (as they say) having resigned up their power to the Emperor. But this no doubt is a gross error, (which I have largely refuted in the Appendix, and therefore shall be the briefer here) derived from some civil Lawyers; who out of Justinian. Digest. lib. 2. Tet. 2. and Instit. Tit. 2. falsely affirm, that Lege Regia; by the regal Law the Senate and people transferred all their Empire and power unto the Emperor. For first the Senate and people (as Albericus Gentilis well observes ) did not by this Law give the Emperor all power and command to dispose of them, or the lands and revenues of the Empire, as he pleased; but only to govern them according to their Laws, as men; not to slay and alienate them as beasts. Thus reason dictates, so the words of the Law sound. Divines are deceived, Lawyers flatter, who persuade, that all things are lawful to Princes, and that their power is highest and free. It is ridiculous to affirm, that absolute power over the subjects belongs to Popes; which belongs not to the Emperors themselves over the Italians, from whom they derive it. Imagine therefore that the Emperor had a power never so free, yet it is not of dominion, but of administration. And he who hath but a free administration hath not the power of donation. ^e A gardian is then reputed instead of a Lord, cum tutelam administrat, non cum pupillum spoliat; when he rightly administers his tutelage, not when he spoils his pupil. So Gentilis. If then the Emperors had only a free legal administration, not an absolute dominion; granted them by the people, then this sovereign power still resided in the Senate and people, as Justinian Digest. lib. 1. Tit. 2. De Origin Juris, will sufficiently manifest: Secondly, John Bodin a learned Civilian clearly proves: That the Roman Emperors were at the first; nothing else but Princes of the Commonwealth, The SOVERAIGNTY NEVERTHELESSE STILL RESTING IN THE PEOPLE, and THE SENATE: So that this Common-wealth was then to have been called a Principality; although that Seneca speaking in the person of Nero his Scholar, saith. I am the only man amongst living men, elect and chosen to be the Lieutenant of God upon earth: I am the Arbitratour of life and death; I am able of my pleasure to dispose of the state and quality of every man. True it is, that he took upon him this Sovereign authority, by force wrested from the people and Senate of Rome, (therefore not freely given him by any Law) but IN RIGHT HE HAD IT NOT, the State being but a very principality WHEREIN THE PEOPLE HAD THE SOVERAIGNTY. In which case, THERE IS NO DOUBT but that IT IS LAWFULL to proceed against a Tyrant by way of justice, if so men may prevail against him: or else by way of fact, and OPEN FORCE, if they may not otherwise have reason; As the Senate did in the first case against NERO: and in the other against Maximinus. So Bodin, who directly resolves, that even in Nero his reign when this Epistle was written, the highest sovereign power was not in the Emperor, but in the Senate and people: who notwithstanding this objected Text, had no doubt a lawful Right, not only to resist Nero when he turned Tyrant with open force, but likewise judicially to arraign and condemn him even to death, as they did, for his public crimes. Now that the Sovereign highest Power remained in the Senate and people notwithstanding this Lex Regia, Marius Salamonius ( an incomparable learned Roman Civilian) hath largely proved in his six Books De principatu ( purposely written to refute the contrary common error) where he writes,

This and much more Salamonius. All which considered, will infallibly evidence, the Roman Senate and People to be the highest power in Paul's time, not the Emperor; who even at this day (as Bodin proves ) is inferior to the Germane States, who are the Sovereign power: when King Henry the fourth of France, Anno 1600. used this speech to the Duke of Savoy; If the King of France would be ambitious of anything greater then his Crown, it might be an Empire, but not in the estate that it is now, the title of Empire being little more then that of the Duke of Venice; the sovereignty (writes the Historian in the Margin) remaining in the States of the Empire.

All that is objected against the premises, is that passage of Tertullian, much insisted on: Colimus ergo & Imperatorē sic, quomodo & nobis licet, & ipsi expedit, ut hominem à DEO SECUNDUM; & quicquid est à Deo consecutum, SOLO DEO MINOREM. Hoc et ipse volet: Sic enim OMNIBUS MAJOR EST, DUM SOLO VERO DEO MINOR EST. Sic & ipsis Diis major est, dum & ipsi in poteste sunt ejus, &c.

To which I answer, that these words 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 Ethnicall manner; as is evident by the words preceding this passage: Sic & circa Majestatem Imperatoris infamamur, &c. and by sundry notable passages in his Apologeticus. In answer to which accusation Tertullian reasons in the Christians 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 greater 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 they; 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 formidine & callidiore timiditate Caesarem observatis, quam ipsum de Olympo Jovem, &c. adeo & in isto irreligiosi erga dees vestros deprehendimini, cum plus timoris, humano Domino dicatis; citius denique apud vos per omnes Deos, quam per unum genium Caesaris pejeratur. Then he adds, Interest hominis Deo cedere; satis habeat appellari Imperator: grande & hoc nomen est, quod a Deo tradetur: negat illum imperatorem qui deum dicit; nisi homo sit, non est imperator. Hominem se esse etiam triumphans in illo sublimissimo curru admonetur. Suggeritur enim ci a tergo, Respice post te; hominem memento te. Etiam hoc magis gaudet tanta se gloria coruscare, ut illi admonitio conditionis suae sit necessaria. Major est qui revocatur ne se deum existimet. Augustus imperii formator, ne Dominum quidem dici se volebat: et hoc enim Dei est cognomen. Dicam plane Imperatorem Dominum, sed more communi, sed quando non cogor, ut Dominum Dei vice dicam. Concluding thus: Nullum bonum sub exceptione personarum administramus, &c. lidem sumus Imperatoribus qui & vicinis nostris. Male enim velle, male facere, male dicere, male cogitare de quoquam ex aequo vetamur, Quodcunque non licet in Imperatorem, id nec in quenquam: quod in neminem, eo forsitan magis nec in ipsum qui per deum tantus est, &c. From which it is evident, that the Christians did not 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 just 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 notwithstanding 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 mere 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, 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 most 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 malice 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 Bueer for saying, that Tyrants power is from God, as if he were ths author of sin and Tyranny.

This then fully answers that absurd error of Doctor Ferne, wherein all his force is placed: That the Power 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 to 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 masters as such, in point of submission or obedience.

For the fourth Quere: Whether Kings and Kingdoms be God's ordinance; or an institution Jure divino, not a human ordinance, instituted Jure humano? 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 that by Idolatry and oppression, he breaks not the trust reposed in him by his 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. Jer. 27. 5, 6, 7. Isaiah 45. 1, 2. and other Texts.

To answer this question distinctly, 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 occasion.

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 decreed, 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 fort 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 Patriarchicall; next Aristocratical; then Regal; not by God's immediate institution and voluntary designation; but by the people's earnest importunity, contrary to the good liking of God and Samuel, as is evident by 1 Sam. c. 8, and 9, and 10, and 11. Hos. 8. 4. and the Appendix.

Secondly, All Politicians, and Historians grant, that the original crection of all Monarechies was either by the people's free consent and ordination; or by Tyranny and usurpation; or be conqest; 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, others 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, Gothicorum ) 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, Joannis Leo, lib. 7. Of the Quadi and Jazyges (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 cause.

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 himsele, 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; whether 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 received, 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. Jer. 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 drift 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 erections and power of Monarchies; and so do Daniel 2. 21. c. 4. 17. 25. c. 5. 26. 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, as 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 prescribes them.

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 Secundus a heathen in his admirable Panegyrio 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, unde & 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 Jure 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 lifeteth 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 vigilant over 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 respect at all of persons with God, who accepts not the persons of Princes, regards the rich no more then the poor, for they are all the work of his hands ) then kings reigning by the Providence of God, can of itself no more exempt them from resistance, censures, deprivations, for their detestable public crimes, then it exempts any other Nobles, Princes, Judges, Magistrates, Christians, or the meanest subjects whatsoever; which I shall make good by one more unanswerable demonstration. There is not one of our Antagonists but will acknowledge, that Priests under the Law, and all Ministers under the Gospel, if rightly qualified, are not made only such by God's special Providence, 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 Powers: 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 the open Court, That if they could not prove their Lordly Episcopacy to be Iure Divino, they would presently burn their Rochets, and lay down their 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 notwithstanding 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 cares; or attempt with force to subvert Religion, 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 Histories manifest, and the example of Abiathar the High Priest, 1 Kings 2. 26, 27 And if so, then why not Kings as well as they, or other temporal Magistrates, notwithstanding any of the objected Texts? Either therefore our Opposites must grant all Bishops, Priests, Ministers, yea, all other Magistrates whatsoever, as irresistable, uncensurable, undeprivable, uncondemnable, for any crimes whatsoever, as they say kings are, which they dare not do; or else make Kings as 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 Monarchiall Government, without any power to alter it into an Aristocracy, or other form, upon any occasion; or so as 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 institution, 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 confessed 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, as 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 safely deny, since the Patriarchs, the first families of most Nations and Countries were not so, and all Nations, all people before settled public governments, were erected, which in many places are not very ancient; since those whose Parents are dead, and are not by them subjected to a Government, are naturally free; and none bound to part with their freedom to any other, 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 Ordinance, in a subjection to a superior earthly civil 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 Regnum est; and that of Solomon (concerning oppressing Kings and Judges) He that is higher then the Highest considers, and there be higher then they: And so make kings not 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 contrary 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 〉 , the Latin, English, French, Dutch use them both as one, without distinction: The first word signifies properly disordered, counter-ordered, or 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. Luke 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 indifferently 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 Higher Powers; because (as Haymo, Tollet, Willet, Soto, and most other Interpreters observe) we ought willingly and cheerfully to submit to the higher Powers, not only with our bodies, but souls and spirits too: I may hence clearly infer, that the resistance of the higher Power he 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 eternal overthrow, and unavoidably demonstrates the resistance of the Higher Powers here prescribed, to be only of just lawful powers in their just 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 proceedings 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 designs; 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 her • tofore (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 a • 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 excommunications 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

A memorable story of a zealous stout Prelate, and of a pen • tent submissive wild Prince: I shall only add to this some few domestic president • of our Welch Kings Teudur king of Brecknock, for his perjury and murder of Elgisti • 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 〈◊〉 Christian communion, Whereupon Toudur 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 Euch • rist. 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 absolution 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. Iudhail 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 Cerenlyir 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 former 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 Synod, 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 treacherously putting out the eyes of Etguin during the truce between them; After which he was again publicly excommunicated 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 lands 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 Henringuinna 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 sublim • , 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 apart 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 diver. 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 afault 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, in imitation 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 meant 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 or 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 needs err 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, transcends 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 conceive, they have quite lost and yielded up the cause they now contend for, notwithstanding this chief Text of Romaves 13. the ground of all their strength at first, but now of their 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 sent by him (to wit, by God, not the King, as the distribution manifests, and Rom. 13. 1, 2, 3, 4.) For the punishment of 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 meerin consequent; 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 meet non-sense both in Law, Divinity, and common Reason.

If any reply, as they do, that the Apostle, verse. 18, 19, 20. Bids servants 〈◊〉 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 Masters 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 Master; the other only under the just, settled, legal Government of their Princes, according to the Laws of the Realm: Secondly, 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 heen) 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 us 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 invade their Estates to ruin them: Since then inferior Officers, and other menmay be forc • bly resisted when they actually attempt by force to ruin Religion, Laws, Liberties, the republike, as 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 date 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 had 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 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; 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 Jure divino; (as our Antagonists hence infer) is a gross absurdity.

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. expond 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 Severaigne Powers; their whole States, Senates, Parliaments, being the Supreamest Powers, and above them; which being Courts of State, of Justice, and a compound body of many members, not 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 Power, ) 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.

Fourthly, This Text speaks not at all of the Roman Emperor, neither is it meant of him, as Doctor Fern • , 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 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 Josephus, 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, Philo Judaeus 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. Jud. lib. 4. cap. 8. 2. Sam. 18. 3, 4. Jer. 38. 45. 1. Chron. 13. 1. to 6. attest) will no way advantage our Opposites, nor advance the Prerogative of Kings; since it extends 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, for a Son to resist his Father; the Members the Head; the Vassals their Lord; the Flock their Shepherd.

To this I answer: First, They are Fathers, Shepherds, 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 Shepberds turn Wolves; these Fathers, Step-fathers; the Subjects, as to this, cease to be their Sheep, their Children, in point of Obedience and Submission.

Secondly, If we consider the Common-weal and Kingdom collectively; Kings are rather their Kingdoms children then Parents, because created by them, their 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.

Thirdly, Parishioners may, no doubt, lawfully resist the false Doctrines and open assaults 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 assaults 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.

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, Pastors, Heads to Kings; who ought to obey, not judge, and censure them, as Archbish. Stratford, and others argue. But this plea is no ways available to exempt Clergy men from secular Jurisdiction; from 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 ingeminating this saying; Blessed be he that cometh in the Name of the Lord, Opened the Church door, and let in the persecutor, by whom he obtained the Crown of Martyrdom, not daring to exclude the scourge of the Lord; knowing, that the beloved 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 bind all men.

The third reason is this, Saints forcible 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 hac controversia non sunt multo faciendae, quia quid sit Lex humana ipsi ignorant, as Vasquius controvers. Illustr. 81. .11. determines.

Secondly, The knowledge of a 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 nodo, 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 flere, potero gemere: adversus arma, milites, Gothos, Lachrymae meae arma sunt: talia sunt munimenta sacerdotum: A LITER NEC DEBEO, NEC POSSVM RESISTERE.

This chief Authority, though it makes a great noise in the world, if solidly 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 Valentine, 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 Emperors, Saint Ambrose, and Milan where he was Bishop.

This is evident by the express objected words: I can grieve, I can weep, I can mourn, (to wit for the wasting of my native Country Italy, by the Invading Enemies the 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 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 Helmet 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.

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 multas multi profuderunt. HOC VNVM 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 depulsorem habituri eramus, quam 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 and tears against Tyrants and oppressors.

Secondly, that these are the most powerful prevailing Arms both to resist and 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 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 Treason, as well as bearing Arms, and striking blows; yea, the Statute of 1 & 2 Ph. & Ma. c. 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 much 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 other weapons but tears against Julian, the only thing in question. No such syllable 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 arms. 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 futuros, 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 to persecute 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 STABIMUSET PUGNABIMVS 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, Bernard was both a Monk and Clergy-man, prohibited by Scripture and sundry 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.

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 pacta vestra tenetis, nec sanis consiliis acquicscitis. Sed nescio quo Dei judicio, omnia vobis ita vertitis in perversum, ut probra honorem, honorem probra ducatis; tuta timeatis, timexda contemnatis; & quod olim sancto & glorioso Regi David, Joab, legitur exprobrasse; diligitis eos qui vos oderunt, & odio habetis qui vos diligere volunt. Neque 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 furoris habeant effectricem; quem suis se posse adimplere viribus non confidunt; INIMICI CORONAE VESTRAE, REGNI MANIFESTISSIMI PERTURBATORES. (Our present case, in regard of the Kings evil seduding 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 necem hominum, combustionem domorum, destructionem Ecclesiarum, dispersionem pauperum, raptoribus, predonibus (sicut dicitur, adhaeretis; juxta illud Prophetae si videbas furem currebas cum eo, &c. quasi non satis per vos 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 violence 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 (if 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 Conrade King of Romans; where he subjects these Kings to the Pope, whom he adviseth them to obey; and reprehends them for their misdemeanors, 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 conjoin: the first is out of Tertullian his Apologeticus. Quoties enim in Christianos d • saevitis, partim animis propriis, partim legibus obsequentes? Quoties etiam praeteritis à vobis SUO JURE NOS INIMICUM VULGUS invadit lapidibus & incendiis? Ipsis Bacchanalium furiis, nec mortuis parcunt Christianis, quin illos de requie sepulturae, 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 una nox pauculis faculis largitatem ultionis posset operari, si malum malo dispurgi, 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 & inermes, NEC REBELLES, sed tantummodo discordes solius divortii invidia adversus vos dimicasse. Si enim tanta vis hominum, in aliquem orbis remoti sinum abrupissemus semus 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 cedunt. 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 • n • s. 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, laeniabantur, 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 refute.

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:

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 〈◊〉 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 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 is worse then death not to be admitted to, or delayed the honor of being Martyrs, of which we have infinite Presidents 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

Will it then follow from these memorable examples, That all true Christians now in England and Ireland must come thus and offer themselves voluntarily to the Popish Rebels and Forces (now in Arms to extirpate the Protestant Religion in both Kingdoms) or that the Members of both Houses must go speedily to Oxford to the King and his 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 do) 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 voluntarily 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 resistance, when they might have lawfully and easily preserved them by resisting? Will it therefore follow, that all others must do so? that we must not sight against invading Enemies, Thieves, Pirates Riotors, because 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 three 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 speech to Flaccus, Inermes sumus ut vides, & tamen sunt qui nos tanquam hosts publicos hic criminantur. Etiam ease quas ad nostri tutelam partes dedit natura, re • ro vertimus ubi nihil habent quod agant, corpora praebemus nuda & patentia ad impetum eorum qui nos volunt occidere. Or that example of the Christian Theban Legion, slain without the least resistance for their Religion: who as an ancient Martyriologer saith, Caed • bantur passim gladiis non reclamantes, sed & depositis armis cervices persecutoribus vel intectum corpus offerentes: warrant this deduction. Ergo, no Christians now must resist their invading enemies on the Sabbath day, but must offer their naked bodies, heads, throats, unto their swords and violence? If not, then these examples and authorities will no ways prejudice our present resistance.

Fourthly, the Christians not only refused to resist their oppressing Emperors 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 praeteritis à vobis SUO JURE NOS INIMICUM VULGUS invadit lapidibus & incendiis, &c. manifest without all contradiction; and indeed this passage so much insisted on, relates principally, if not 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 so 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. Quodcunqne non licet in Imperatorem id n • c in quenquam.

Fifthly, admit the Christians then deemed all forcible resistance of persecutors 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 (Nefas) 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 satisfactorily answered this objection without shifts or evasions, and rectified these mistaken Fathers meanings, with which our Opposites have seduced the illiterate over-credulous vulgar.

I have now (through 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 advise 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, perversions of Scriptures, Authors, which I have here discovered. And since they pretend nothing but their satisfying and keeping of a good Conscience in & by others, concerned in this 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 palinedy upon their information and conviction of any apparent oversights, I may casually fall into.

Now because they shall not deem me singular in my opinion concerning the 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 White his Defense of the way, Chap. 6. & 10. in Abbas Vspergensis, Sabellicus, Valateranus, Grimston and others, in the Lives of the Roman and German Emperors; in Aventinchis Annalium Boyorum, the General and Particular Histories of France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Sicily, Hungary, England; in Bishp Bilsons third part of the True Difference between Christian Subjection and unchristian Rebellion. In sundry Sermons on the 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 this in peccatorum remissionem, & Apostolicae sedis familiaritatem praecipimus, ut his laboribus, & triumphis ad Coelestem Jerusalem, Domino praestante, pervenias: Which Letter 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 other; & not only repulse this injury, but likewise invade the lands of the Church, possessed by the Pope their notorious enemy, not perpetually to retain, but to hinder the Pope from 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 altenate and subject his Kingdom to another, without his subjects consents, or be carried with atrue hostile mind, to the destruction 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 alloweth of Subjects resistance, yea, deposing kings, insome Kingdoms absolutely, and in some cases gener allyin all; De Repub. l. 1. c. 10. l. 1. c. 5 & l. 5. c. 5. & 6. For Protestant 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, Spaelotinus, Melancthon, Cruciger, and other Divines, Lawyers, Statesmen, Anno 1531. who published a writing in justification of defensive Arms by subjects in certains cases; Sleidan, Hist. lib. 8. 18. 22. David Chrytraus, Chron. Saxoniae, l. 13. p. 376. Richardus Dinothus de Bello Civili Gallico Religions caeusasuscepto, 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 Pareus, 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; Iohu 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 Martyr Com: In Rom. 13 p. 1026. with sundry late writers, common in every man's hands, justifying the lawfulness 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 Sovereign in Germany, Flaunders, Scotland, France; but likewise dogmatically determines in these words;

So this learned Bishop determines in his authorized Book dedicated to Queen Elizabeth, pointblank against our Novell Court-Doctors, and Royalists.

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 Coscience, 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 Antagonists 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 Low-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 these 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 Magdeburge, together with other Protestant Princes, States, Lawyers, Cities, Counselors and Ministers, after serious consultation, coneluded 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 caeses; that the times were then so dangerous, that THE VERY FORCE OF CONSCIENCE AND NECESSITY DID LEAD THEM TO ARMS, and to make a League to defend themselves, THOVGH CAESAR OR ANY IN HIS NAME WOVLD MAKE WAR AGAINST THEM; That if the 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 Francis the second, Anno 1559. being much oppressed by the Guisian faction, who had got the K. into their power, and wholly swayed him ( as his Maj. ill Counselors sway him now ) there upon 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 mado by the chief Dukes, Peers, Nobles, and Officers of France, Anno 1614. which you may read in the Appendix.

Thirdly, that the Angrognians and Waldensian Protestants of Lucerne and Piedment in the year 1558. to 1561, being persecuted by the Lord of 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 Protestant Religion professed by them, concluded in the end, to enter into a solemn mutual 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 Zizka, the Thahorites 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 Irquisition to extirpate Religion; did after serious deliberation, and consultation with learned men of all sorts, unanimously conclude and enter into a solemn Covenant to defend their Libities, Religion, Laws, by force of Arms, against the Spanish Tyrannie; as you may read at large in their Histories. And in the year 1572. The Prince of Orange and his Confederates, having 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 everyone 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 means, 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 insatiable 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 natural Lord, as we are bound to do: affirming and maintaining, that all Princes and Noblemen, Gentlemen, Commonweales, or others, of what quality soever, be they strangers or home-bred, that have been moved to give us aide or assistance IN THIS SO IVST AN ENTERPRISE, have not don it for any other intent, but for true piety and compassion which they have with us of the said miseries and calamities: Wherefore we pray and entreat everyone, both in general and particular, 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 Clergy, 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 Parliaments took upon them to make Laws to reform and order his Court, his Courtiers, which he denied, but they affirmed, they had just right and power to do. Hereupon, the business being put unto greater 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 ENDVRED: 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 them 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 condessended 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 fiduciam; 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 forment 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, semplternall 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 Counselors, his Popish Malignant 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, whatevever they have hitherto been informed of to the contrary by temporizing Lawyers, or flattering illiterate Court Divines; and by assuring all such noble generous public spirits, who shall willingly adventure their lives or fortunes by the Parliaments command, in the present necessary defensive war, for the ends premised; 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 infamy 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 unnaturaall cursed kind of Civil War anymore, but beat their swords into Plow-shares, and their spears into pruning hooks; 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.

PAg. 100. l. 28. to. by. p. 101. l. 32. Omri, Zimri. l. 40. Judah. Israel. p. 115. 1. 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.