HAving in the two former Parts of this Discourse dissipated foure chiefe Complaints against the Parliaments procee­dings; Object. 5. I come now in order (in point of time and sequell) to the 5 ^th Grand Objection of the King, Royalists, and Papists against the Parliament. To wit: See many Printed De­clarations, Proclamati­ons to this effect; with other Pam­phlets. That they have traiterously taken up Armes, and levied warre against the King himselfe in his Kingdome; and would have taken away his life at Keinton battell, which is no lesse than Rebellion and High Treason, by the Statute of 25. E. 3. c. 2. with other obsolete Acts; and by the Common Law. Which Obiection, though last in time, is yet of greatest weight and difficulty, now most cryed up and insisted on, of all the rest, in many of his Majesties late Proclamations, Declarations, and in Anti-Parliamentary Pamphlets.

To give a punctuall Answere to this capitall Complaint, Answ. not out of any desire to fo­ment, but cease this most unnaturall bloody warre, which threatens utter desolation to us if proceeded in, or not determined with a just, honourable, secure, lasting peace; now lately rejected by his Majesties party. I say,

First, 1. that it is apparent to all the world, who are not willfully or maliciously blin­ded; That this Majesty first began this warre, not onely by his endeavors to bring up the Northerne Army to force the Parliament, confessed by the flight, letters, examinati­ons of those who were chiefe Actors in it; but by raising sundry forces under colour of a guard before the Parliament levied any.

Secondly, 2. that the See the Houses seve­rall Declara­tions to this effect. Parliament in raising their forces had no intention at all to offer the least violence to his Majesties person, Crowne, dignity, nor to draw any English blood; but onely to defend themselves and the Kingdome against his Majesties Ma­lignant invasive plundring Forces, to rescue his Majestie out of the hands, the power of those ill Councellers and Malignants who withdrew him from his Parliament, to bring him backe with honour, peace, safety, to his great Councell; (their Generall [Page 2] and Army Marching with a Petition to this purpose,) and to bring those Delinquents to condigne punishment who most contemptuously deserted the Houses, contrary to Order, Law, the Priviledges of Parliament, their owne Protestation taken in both Houses, sheltring themselves, under the power of his Majesties presence and Forces, from the justice of the Houses, and apprehension of their Officers, contrary to all pre­sidents in former ages, in High affront of the priviledges, honour, power of the Par­liament, and 13 E 1 c. 38 31 H. 6, c. 1. See Ashes Ta­ble, Contemp. 6, 7. the Law bookes there quoted, 6 H. 8. c. 16. 3 E. 3. 19. Coron, 161. Dyer, 60. Stamford: Pleas, l. 1. c, 29, f. 38. l, 3, c, 63, f, 153 Fundamentall knowns Lawe of the Realme: Since which time, his Majestie having (contrary to his former Proclamations and frequent Printed solemne Declarations) entertained, not onely divers Irish Pop [...]sh Rebels, but likewise English and Outlandish Papists in his Army, and given Commissions to sundry The De­claration of the Lords & Commons in Answer to his Majesties, concerning Keinto [...] Bat­tle. Arch Popish Recu­sants, to Arme themselves, and raise Forces against the Parliament, and Kingdom, now in the field in all the Northerne parts, Wales, and other places, (and that under the Popes owne consecrated Banner as many report) in defiance of our Protestant Religion, (designed by the Popish Party both at home and abroad, to no lesse then utter extirpa­tion in England, as well as in Ireland, if not in Scotland too, (as some of them openly professe;) the Parliament are hereupon necessitated to augment and recrute their for­ces; as for the precedent ends at first, so now more especially, for the necessary defence of the Protestant Religion established among us by law; against which they (and all others who are not wilfully blinded) visibly discerne a most apparant desperate conspiracie; which though not cleerely perceived, but onely justly suspected at first, doth now appeare (all circumstances and agents considered) to be the very Embrio and primitive cause of this deplorable warre; against which the Parliament and sub­jects are now more necessitated and engaged to desend themselves then ever, seeing they have by all possible meanes endeavored to prevent this warre at first, and since to accommodate it, though in vaine, upon just, reasonable, and honorable safe termes for King and Kingdome. The sole Question then in this case thus truely stated will be.

Whether his Majestie, having contrary to his Oath, Duty, the fundamentall Laws of God and the Realme, raised an Armie of Malignants, Papists, Forraigners; against his Parliament, Kingdome, People, to make an Offensive warre upon them, to murther, rob, spoyle, deprive them of their peace, liberties, properties, estates; to impose unlawfull taxes by force upon them; protect Delinquents and evill Coun­cellors against the Parliaments Iustice, and violently to undermine our established Protestant Religion; the Common-wealth of England legally assembled in Parlia­ment; and all Subjects in such cases by Command and direction from both Houses of Parliament, may not lawfully and justly without any Treason or Rebellion, in point of Law and Conscience, take up defensive Armes to preserve the Priviledges of Parliament, their Lawes, lives, liberties, estates, properties, Religion, to bring Delin­quents and ill Councellours to condigne punishment, and rescue his seduced Majestie out of their hands and power, though he be personally present with them, to assist and countenance them in this unnaturall destructive warre?

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

First, I have Part 1. & 2. throughout. already proved in Judgement of Law; the Parliament and King­dome assembled in it, to be the Soveraigne power, and of greater authority then the King, who is but their publike Minister in point of civill Iustice, and Generall in matters of warre, as the Roman Kings and Emperours were, and other forraigne [Page 3] Kings of old and at this day are. The Parliament then being the highest power, and having principall right and authority to denounce, conclude and proclaime warre, (as I have manifested in the debate of the Militia,) may not onely lawfully resist, but op­pugne, suppresse all Forces raised against it, and the Kingdomes peace or welfare.

Secondly, the principall end of the Kingdomes, originall erecting Parliaments, and in­vesting them with supreame power at first, was, to defend not onely with good Lawes and Councell, but when absolute necessitie requires (as now it doth,) with open force of Armes; the Subjects Liberties, Persons, Estates, Religion, Lawes, Lives, Rights, from the encroachments and violence of their Kings, and to keepe Kings within due bounds of Law and Iustice, the end of instituting the See Polybius Hist. l. 6. Arist Polit. l. 3. c. 10. 11. l. 5. c. 10. l. 2. c. 5. Bodin l. 1, c, 10. l, 2, c. 5. Senate and Ephori among the Lacaedemonians, the Senate and Dictators among the Romans, the Hieron. Blan. Aragonens. Rerum Com­ment. p. 588. 589. 716. to 725. 747. to 760. Joan, Mariana de Rege & Regie Instit. l. 1. c. 5. to 10. Forum Suprarbiense, and Justitia Aragoniae among the Aragonians; of Parliaments, Dietts, and Assemblies of the estates in other forraigne Kingdomes, and in Scotland, as I shall prove at large in its In the Ap­pendix. proper place. This is cleare by the proceedings of all our Parlia­ments in former ages; Especially in King Iohns, Henry the third, Edward the 1. 2. 3. and Richard the seconds Raignes; by the latter Parliaments in King Iames his raigne, yea of 3. Caroli, the last dissolved Parliament, and this now sitting, whose principall care and imployment hath beene to vindicate the Subjects Liberties, properties, lawes, and Religion, from all illegall encroachments on them by the Crown and its ill Instru­ments: by the Part. 1. forecited resolutions of Bracton, Fleta, the Myrror of Iustices, Vowell, Holinshed, the Councell of Basill, and others, that the Parliament ought to restraine and bridle the king when he casts off the bridle of the Law, and invades the Subjects Li­berties, especially with open force of Armes in an Hostile manner: and by the constant practise of our Ancestors and the Barons Warres, in maintenance of Magna Charta, with other good Lawes and Priviledges, confirmed by Parliament. If then the Parlia­ment be instrusted by the Kingdome with this Superlative power, thus to protect the Subjects Liberties, properties, Lawes, persons, Religion, &c. against the kings invasions on them by policie or violence: they should both betray their trust, yea the whole kingdome too, if they should not with open Force of Armes, (when Policy, Coun­cell, and Petitions will not doe it) defend their owne and the Subjects Liberties, per­sons, priviledges, &c. against his Majesties offensive Armies which invade them, in­tending to make the whole kingdome a present booty to their insaciable rapine, and a future vassall to his Majesties absolute arbitrary power, by way of conquest.

I reade in Common-wealth l. 3. c. 1 See Plut. Caes. & Pompeius. Bodin that the Roman Senate being no way able to restraine Caesar, tooke their refuge to that ancient Decree of the Senate, which was commonly made but in dangerous times of the Common-weal [...]. Videant Consules & caeteri Magistratus ne quid detrimenti capiat Respublica: Let the Consulls and other Majestrates fore see that the Common-weale take no harme. With which decree of the Senate, the Consulls being armed, sodainely raised their power, commanding Pompey to take up Armes and raise an Army against Caesar to oppose his violent proceedings by force who after his conquest of Pompey refusing to rise up to the Consulls, Pretors, and whole Senate, out of his pride, through his ill Councellors advise, and talking with them, as if they had beene but private men, he so farre offended both the Senate and people, that to free the Republicke from his Tyranny, and preserve their hereditary Liberties, they conspi­red his death, and soone after murthered him in the Senate-house, where they gave him no lesse than 23. wounds. And Aragonensi­um Rerum Com [...]. p. 724. Hieronimus Blanca assures us, that the Suprarbiense Fo­rum, Iustitia Aragoniae, or States of Arag [...]n, (erected to withstand the tyrannie and en­croachments of their kings) may by the Laws of their Realme assemble together, and [Page 4] RESIST THEIR KING WITH FORCE OF ARMES, as oft as there shall bee neede to repulse his, or his Officers violence against the Lawes; ‘For when they erected this Court, they said, It would be little worth to have good Lawes enacted, and a middle Court of Iustice betweene the King and people appointed, if it might not be lawfull to take up Armes for their Defence when it was needfull; (being agree­able to the very Law of nature and reason;) Because then it will not be sufficient to fight with Counsell: For if this were not so, and the State and Subjects in such cases might not lawfully take up armes, all things had long ere this been in the power of Kings. Therefore, no doubt, our Parliament and State, as well as others, may by the very Law of Nature, and fundamentall institution of Parliaments, now justly take up Defensive armes to preserve their Liberties, Lawes, Lives, Estates, Religion. from vassallage and ruine.’

Thirdly, Our owne Parliaments, Prelates, Nobles, and Commons in all ages (espe­cially in times of Popery) as well in Parliament, as out, have by open force of armes resisted, suppressed the oppressions, rapines, vnjust violence, and armies of their Princes raised against them; Yea, incountred their Kings in open Battells, taken their persons Prisoners, and sometimes expelled, nay deposed them from their Roy­all authority, when they became incorrigible open professed enemies to their king­domes, their Subjects, seeking the ruine, slavery, and desolation of those, whom by Office, Duty, Oath, and common Iustice, they were bound inviolably to pro­tect in Liberty and peace, as the Part 1. p. 6, 7, 8, &c. premised Histories of Archigallo, Emerian, Vorti­gern, Segebert, Osred, Ethelred, Bernard, Edwin, Ceolwulfe, King John, Henry the 3 ^d. Edward 1. and 2. Richard the 2, Henry the 6 ^th. (our British, Saxon, English Kings,) and other examples common in our owne Annalls, plentifully manifest. Nei­ther are their examples singular, but all Kingdomes generally throughout the world in all ages have done the like, when their Kings degenerated into Tyrants, of which there are See Arist. Polir. l. 5 c. 10 D ^t. Beards Thea [...]re of Gods Iudge­ments. l. 2. c. 9. to 43. Ad generum Cere­ris pauci sine sarguine fuso, Descendunt Reges, & sicca morte Tyranni suvenal. See the Appen­dix. infinite precedens in History: which actions all ages, all Kingdomes have alwaies reputed lawfull both in point of Policy, Law, Religion, as warranted by the very Lawes of Nature, Reason, State, Nations, God; which instruct, not onely particular persons, but whole Cities and Kingdomes for their owne necessary defence, preservation, the supportation of humane Societie and Libertie, to protect themselves against all unlawfull violence and Trranny, even of their Kings themselves, or their Ministers, to whom neither the Lawes of God, Nature, Man, nor any civill Nation, ever yet gave the least authority to Murther, Spoile, Oppresse, enslave their Subjects, or deprive them of their lawfull Liberties or Estates; which resistance were it unlaw­full or unjust (as many ignorant Royallists and Parasites now teach) some few op­pressing tyrannizing wilfull Princes, might without the least resistance, ruine, mur­ther, enslave the whole world of men; overthrow all setled formes of civill govern­ment, extirpate Christian Religion, and destroy all humane Society at their pleasures; all which had beene effected, yea, all States and Kingdomes totally subverted long agoe, by ambitious Tyrannizing lawlesse Princes, had not this Lawfull, Naturall, He­reditary power of resisting and opposing their illegall violence (inherent in their Par­liaments, States, Kingdomes) restrained and suppressed their exorbitances of this kinde. Now that this necessary Defensive opposition and resistance against open Regall Hostile violence, which hath beene ever held lawfull, and frequently practised in all Kingdomes, all ages heretofore, as just and necessary; should become sodenly un­lawfull to our Parliament, and Kingdome onely, at this instant, seemes very unrea­sonable unto me.

[Page 5] Fouthly, It is the expresse resolution of Polit. l. 5. c. 13. 11. Aristotle, Memorabil. l. 4. p. 813. Xenophon, Hist. l. 6. Polibius, Spelmani Concil. Tem. 1 p. 34. Pope Elutherius, (in his Epistle to our first Christian King, Lucius) King Lambard. Archaion. p. 130. Fox Acts & Mon. vol. 1. p. 214. Edward the Confessor in his established Lawes, c. 17. the Lib cap. 1. 2 Surius Tom. 3. p. 383. Councell of Paris, Anno 829. and Isiodor cited by it; Common-wealth. l. 2. c. 4, 5. Iohn Bodin, De Rege et Regis Jnstit. l. 1. c. 5. 6. Iohn Mariana, and generally of all for­raigne Divines and Polititians, Pagan or Christian; yea of Lib. 3. c. 9. fol. 107. Bracton, Lib. 1. c. 17: Fleta, De Laudib. Legum Angl. c. 9. to 15. For­tescue, and Speech in Parliament House, Anno 1609. King Iames himselfe; that a King governing in a setled Kingdome, ceaseth to be a King, and degenerates into a Tyrant, so soone as hee leaves to rule by his Lawes; much more, when he begins to invade his Subjects, Persons, Rights, Liberties, to set up an Abitrary power; impose unlawfull Taxes, raise Forces, and make Warre upon his Subjects, whom he should Protect, and rule in peace; to pillage, plunder, waste, and spoile his Kingdome; imprison, murther, and destroy his people in an hostile manner, to captivate them to his pleasure; the very highest degree of Tyranny, condemned and detested by God, and all good men. The whole State and Kingdome therefore in such cases as these, for their owne just necessary preservation, may lawfully with force of Armes, when no other course can secure them, not onely passively, but actively resist their Prince, in such his violent, exorbitant, tyrannicall proceedings; without resisting any kingly, lawfull royall Authority Vested in the Kings person, for the Bract. l. 3. c. 9. Fleta l. 1. c. 17. Fortos. c. 9. to 15. Cooke 7. Report fol. 5. 11. Calvins Case. Rom. 13 4, 5. 1 Pet. 2. 14. king­domes preservation onely, not destruction; because in, and as to these illegall oppressi­ons, tyrannicall actions, not warranted, but prohibited by the Lawes of God, and the Realme, (to whom he is See the A­pendix. accountable, and by whom he is justly censurable for them) he is no lawfull King, nor Majestrate, but an unjust oppressing Tyrant, and a meere private man, who (as to these proceedings) hath quite denuded himselfe of his just Regall authority. So that all those wholsome Lawes made by the whole State in Par­liament, for the necessary preservation and defence of their Kings Royall Person, and lawfull Soveraigne power; the suppression of all Insurrections, Treasons, Con­spiracies and open Warres against them, whiles they governe their people justly ac­cording to Law, (as all good Princes are 2 Sam. 23. 3 2 Chro. 9. 8 See the Kings Coron. oath, obliged to doe by oath and duty;) or the o­pen violent resisting of their Lawfull authority and Commands; to which all Sub­jects both in point of Law and Row. 13. 1 2, 3. 1 Pet. 2 13. 14. Titus 3. 1 Conscience, ought cheerfully and readily to Submit; will yeeld no publike Countenance, Encouragement, or Protection at all to Kings, in their irregall, tyrannicall oppressions, or violent courses; especially when they turne professed publike enemies to their people, proclaime open Warre against them, invade their Lawes, Liberties, Goods, Houses, Persons, and exercise all acts of Hostilitie a­gainst them, as fatre forth as the most barbarous Forraigne Enemies would doe: It being against all common sence and reason to conceive, that our Parliaments, Lawes which strictly inhibit and punish the very smallest violations of the publike peace, with all kinds of Oppressions, Robberies, Trespasses, Batteries, Assaults, Bloodsheds, Fraies, Murthers, Routs, Riots, Insurrections, Burglaries, Rapes, Plunderings, Force-able En­tries, Invasions of the Subjects Liberties or Properties, in all other persons, and grea­test publike Officers whatsoever (whose Perniciosus de Repub &c. Ciecero de Legi. 2 Sam. 12. 7, to 14. cap. 16. 21. 22. 2 Chr. 33. See. Marian. de Reg. & Reg. Inst. l. 1. c. 9. Delinquences are so much the more hainous, execrable and censurable, De Leg. Ang c. 9. 10. 12, 13. 14. as their persons, honours, and places are more eminent) should so farre countenance, justifie, or patronize them onely in the King, the Su­preame fountaine of Iustice ( ad tutelam Legis corporum & bonorum erectus, as Fortescue, and Sir Lib. 7. f. 5, Calvins Case. c. Edward Cooke resolve; Cujus Potestas Iuris est, & non Injuriae; & cum sit author Iuris, non debet inde injuriarum nasci occasio, unde Iura naseuntur, as Lib. 3. c. 9. f. 107. Bracton, and Lib. 1 c. 17. Fleta determine;) as not to permit the Subjects, under paine of Re­bellion [Page 6] and high Treason, by force of Armes, upon expresse command and direction of the whole Kingdome in Parliament, so much as to defend their Persons, Goods, Estates, Houses, Wives, Children, Liberties, Lives, Religion, against the open vi­olence of the King himselfe, or his Malignant plundring, murthering Papists, Ca­veleers: When as Kings of all others (as Lib 3. c. 9. Bracton, De Laud le­gum Angl. c. 9. to 15. For escue, and De Rege & Regis Instit. l. 1. c. 9. Mariana prove at large) both by Oath and Duty, ought to be more observant of, and obedient to the Laws of God and their Realmes ( which are Deut. 10. 17 Prov. 28. 21 Rom. 2. 11. Ephes 6. 11. 1 Pet. 1. 17. no respectors of Persons) then the ve­ry meanest of their Subjects. That Precept then of Paul, Rom. 13. 1. 2. 3. Let eve­ry Soule be subject to the higher Powers, &c. And the Statute of 25. E. 3. c. 2. with o­ther obsolete Acts, which declare it High Treason, to levy Warre against the King in his Realme, must needs be intended of, and quallified with these subsequent just li­mitations, sutable to their genuine sense and meaning; to wit, That as long, and so farre foorth, as Kings justly and uprightly doe execute their just Royall power, con­ferred on them by God and their people, according to the Law of God, and their Realmes, to the Protection, encouragement and praise of all their good Subjects, and the deserved punishment onely of Malefactors; they must and ought to be cheereful­ly obeyed, and quietly submitted to, as Gods owne Ministers, without the least resi­stance, private or publike; neither ought any private men upon any private in­juries, of their owne authority to raise up in Armes against them, seeing they are publike Magistrates in whom all the Kingdome have an interest, without the generall assent and authority of the whole State and Kingdome, or of both Houses of Parli­ment which represents it. But if Kings degenerate into Tyrants, and turne professed enemies to their Kingdomes, Parliaments, People, by making open Warre against them; by spoyling, murthering, imprisoning, maiming, sacking, destroying, or putting them out of their Protections, without any just or lawfull grounds, endea­vouring by force of Armes to subvert their Lawes, Liberties, Religion, and expose them as a prey to their mercilesse blood-thirsty Souldiers; or bring in Forraigne For­ces to conquer them, (our present case;) I dare confidently averre, it was never the thought nor intention of Paul, or the Holy Ghost, much lesse of our Nobles, Pre­lats, and Commons in Parliament, which enacted these Lawes (who so oft tooke up Armes, aswell offensive, as defensive, against our Kings, in such like cases hereto­fore) to inhibit Subjects, Kingdomes, Parliaments (especially, by direct Votes and Ordinances of both Houses) under paine of damnation, high Treason, or Rebel­lion, by defensive Armes to resist Kings themselves, or any of their Cavalliers: and if this question had beene put to Paul, Peter, or any of those Parliaments, which enacted these objected Lawes; Whether they ever meant by these Precepts or Sta­tutes, totally to prohibite all Subjects, by generall assent in Parliament, to take up such defensive Armes, or make any forceable resistance, against their Kings or their Armies, in such cases of extremity and necessity as these, under the foresaid penalties? I make little question, but they would have clearely resolved; that it was never so much as within the compasse of their thoughts, much lesse their plaine intention, to prohibite such a resistance, in this or such like cases, but onely according to the precedent ex­position of their words; and that they never imagined to establish in the world any Vnresistable Lawlesse Tyranny, or any such spoile or butchery of Kingdomes, of Sub­jects, execrable to God and man, in all persons, all ages, which have See Doctor Beards The­ater of Gods Iudgements, l. 2. c. 13. to 42. resisted them even unto blood; but rather totally to suppresse them; There being scarce any more pregnant [Page 7] Text, against the Tyranny, the boundlesse Prerogatives, the illegall proceedings of Kings, and Higher Powers in all the Scripture, then that of Romans 13. 1. to 7. if rightly scanned, as Pareus, and others on it manifest. Therefore the Parliaments and peoples present defensive Warre, and resistance against their seduced King, and his Malignant Popish Cavalliers, is no violation of any Law of God, of the Realme; but a just necessary Warre, which they have to the uttermost endeavoured to prevent: and no Treason, no Rebellion at all within the meaning of any Law, or Statute, unlesse we should thinke our Parliaments so mad, as to declare it high Trea­son, or Rebellion, even for the Parliament and Kingdome it selfe, so much as to take up Armes for their owne necessary preservation, to prevent their inevitable ruine, when they are openly assaulted by Royall armies; which none can ever presume they would doe, being the very high way to their owne, and the whole Kingdomes subversion.

Fiftly, admit the King should bring in Forraigne forces ( French, Spanish, Danes, Dutch, or Irish) to destroy, or Conquer his Subjects, Parliament, Kingdome, (as some such forces are already landed, and more expected dayly;) and should join him­selfe personally with them in such a service, I thinke there is no Divine, Lawyer, or true hearted Englishman, so void of reason, or common understanding, as to affirme it Treason, or Rebellion in point of Law, and a matter of Damnation in Conscience, or true Divinity, for the Parliaments, Subjects, Kingdome, to take up necessary de­fensive armes for their owne preservation in such a case, even against the King him­selfe, and his army of Aliens; but would rather deeme it a just, honourable, necessa­ry action; yea, a duty, for every English man to venture his life, and all his fortunes, for the defence of his owne dearest Native Countrey, Posterity, Liberty, Religion; and no lesse then a glorious Gratian. Causa 23. qu. 1. 2. 3. Calvin. Lexicon. Iurid Tit Bellum. Martyrdome, to dye manfully in the Field, in such a publicke quarrell: the very Heathens generally resolving; that Cicero Tus­quaest. l. 2. Dulce & deco­rum est pro Patria mori: Et mortes pro Patria appetitae, Non solum gloriosae Rheto­ribus, sed etiam beatae videri solent: In a case of this quallitie. Whence that noble Romane Liv Rom. Hist. l 5. sect. 51. p. 219. Camillus, professed to all the Romanes in a publike Oration; Patriae deesse quoad vita suppetat, alijs turpe, Camillo etiam NEFAS EST. And is not there the selfe same equity, and reason, when the King shall raise an Army of Popish Eng­lish, or Irish Rebels, Malignants, Delinquents, and bring in Forraigners (though yet in no great proporation) to effect the like designe. If armed force­able resistance be no Treason, no Rebellion in Law or Conscience, in the first, it can be no such crime in our present case.

Sixtly, I would demand of any Lawyer, or Divine: What is the true genuine reason, that the taking up of offensive armes against, or offering violence to the person, or life of the King, is High Treason, in point of Law and Divinitie? Is it not onely because and as he is, the head and chiefe member of the Kingdome, which hath a Common interest in him; and because the Kingdome it selfe sustaines a publike prejudice and losse by this War against, and violence to his Person? Doubtlesse, every man must acknow­ledge this, to be the onely reason; for if he were not such a publike 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 Realme, together with our Historians, make levying of Warre, deposing, or killing the King by private per­sons, High Treason; not onely against the King, but the REALME, and King­dome [Page 8] to; Witnesse 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 Armes against either Realme, without com­mon consent of Parliament) which Enact, The levying of Warre against the King­dome and Parliament, invading of England or Ireland, treachery against the Parlia­ment, repealing of certaine Acts of Parliament, ill Counselling the King, coyning false Money, and offering violence to the Kings person, to take away his Life, to be high Trea­son, not onely against the King and his Crowne, but THE REALME TO; and those who are guilty of such crimes, to bee High Traitors and Enemies TO THE REALME, Walsingh. Hist. Ang. p. 334. 335. as well at to the King. Hence Iohn of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, being accused in a Parliament held in 7. R. 2. by a Carmelite Frier, of High Trea­son, for practising sodainely to surprise the KING, and seize upon his Kingdome; the Duke denied it, as a thing incredible upon this very ground; If I should thus (said he) affect the Kingdome: Walsing, hist Ang. p. 337. Js it credible after your murder (which God forbid) that the Lords of this Kingdome, 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 Captaine of Cherburg in France, was accused by one of Navarre, DE PRODITIO­NE REGIS & REGNI, Of Treason against the King and Kingdome; for delivering up that Castle to the Enemies; And in the Walsing. hist. Ang. p. 245. 246. Parliament of 3. R. 2. Sir John Annesley Knight, accused Thomas Ketrington Esquire, of Treason against the King and Realme, for betraying and selling the Castle of Saint Saviour within the Isse of Constantine in France, Walsing. hist Ang p 72. 76 91, 92. 105, 106. to the French, for a great summe of money, when as he neither wanted Victuals, nor meanes 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 Favourite, 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 Raigne likewise banished, con­demned, and executed, as Traitors to the King and Realme, ET REGNI PRO­DITORES for miscounselling and seducing the King, and moving him to make Warre upon his people: Hence both the Halls Chro. 1 & 3. H. 4 f. 17, 22. Fox Acts & Mon. vol. 1. Edit. ult. Col. 676, 677. Pierces, and the Archbishop of Yorke, in their Articles against King Henry the fourth, accused him, as guilty of High Treason, and a Traitor both to the King, Realme and Kingdome of England, for Deposing and mur­thering Richard the second. And hence the Gunpouder Conspirators, were 3 Iac. c. 1, 2 3, 4. The Kings Pro­clamations. 3 Iacob. A­gainst them, and the Ar­rai [...]nement of Traitors. 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 enemie to his King­dome, and Subjects, to waste or ruine them; or shall seeke to betray them to a For­raigne Enemy (which hath beene held no lesse then Treason in a King to doe, who by the expresse resolution of 28. H. 8. cap. 7. may become a Traitor to the REALME, and thereupon forfeit his very right and title to the Crowne;) it can be no Treason nor Rebellion in Law or Theologie, for the Parliament, Kingdome, Subjects, to take up armes against the King and his Forces, in such a case, when he shal wilfully and malici­ously rent himselfe from, and set himselfe in direct opposition against his Kingdome; [Page 9] and by his owne voluntary actions turne their common interest in him for their good and protection, into a publicke engagement against him, as a common Enemy, who seekes their generall ruine. And if Kings may lawfully take up armes against their Subjects, as all Royallists plead, after they reject their lawfull 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 mutuall; Kings being their Subjects Cooke 7. Re­port, Calvins case. Liege Lords, by Oath and Duty, as well as they their Liege people:) When Kings turne 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 allea­giance thereby is as to this discharged, and suspended towards them, as appeares by the Kings Coronation Oath, and the Math. Paris pag. 73. Speed p. 483. 484. Lords and Prelats conditionall Fealty to King Steven, so that they may justly in Law and Conscience resist their unlawfull as­saults, as enemies; for which they must onely censure their owne 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 levie warre a­gainst his Subjects, unlesse 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, witnes the Law of King Edward the Confessor, cap. 17. and Coronation Oathes of all our Kings forementioned; To keepe PEACE and god­ly agreement INTIRELY, ACCORDING TO THEIR POWER to their peo­ple; Contrary to all the fundamentall Lawes of the Realme, and the Prologues of most Statutes, intirely to preserve, and earnestly to indeavour the peace and welfare of their peoples persons, goods, estates, lawes, liberties; Contrary to the main tenor of all 1 Tim. 2. 1 2, 3. Ier. 19 7 Psal. 122. 6. 7, 8. Isa. 29. 8. & 9. 6. 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 Counsellors advice, and denying their just request, and crow­ned Ieroboam for their King) intending to reduce them to his obedience by force of armes; God by his Prophet Shemiah expressely prohibited him and his army, to goe up, or fight against them; and made them all to returne to their owne houses without fighting; and to Isay 14. 4. 19. to 22. where God threatens, to cast the King of Babilon out of his grave, as an abhominable branch, as a carcasse trodden under foot, (marke the reason) ‘Because thou hast destroyed thy Land, and slaine thy People, to cut off from Ba­bylon his name and remembrance, and Sonnes and Nephewes: as he had cut off his peoples, though heathens.’ Yea, contrary to that memorable Speech of that noble Roman Livy Rom. Hist. l. 7. Dec. 40, p. 285. Arist. Polit. l. p. 5. Maria­n [...] de Rege, l. c. c. 5. Valerius Corinus when he was chosen Dictator, and went to fight against the Roman conspirators, who toke up armes against their Country. Fugeris etiam honestius, tergumque civi dederis, quam pugnaveris contra patriam; nunc ad pacifican­dum bene atque honeste 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 warre upon his Subjects, without very just grounds and unevitable oc­casions be thus utterly sinfull, and unlawfull in law and Conscience; and most dia­metrally contrary to the Oath, Office, trust and duty of a King, (who by this strange metamorphosis Arist. Polit. l. 3. & 5 Buchan. de Iure Regni a­pad Scotos. becomes a Wolfe instead of a Shepheard, a destroyer in liew of a [Page 10] Protector; a publike Enemy in place of a Common friend; an unnaturall Tyrant, instead of a naturall King) it followes inevitably; that the Subjects or King­domes resistance and defensive warre in such a case, both by the law of God, of na­ture, of the Realme, must be lawfull, and just; because directly opposite to, the only preservative against that warre, which is unlawfull and unjust: and so no Treason, nor Rebellion (by any Law of God or man,) which are illegall and criminall too.

Eightly, It is the received resolution of all Gratia [...]. Causa, 23. qu 1, 2, 3. Iacob Spulegiu [...], Le­xicon Iur is, tit Bellum. F. de Iustitia et jure Non sine. Io­annis Ca [...]vini Lexicon [...]uris. Tit. Bellum co. 244, 245. Summa Ange­lica, et Ro­sella Aensis Sum. Part. 3. qu. 36. mem. 3. & quaest. 47. num. 3. Martin Laud. de Bello, Suriu [...] Concil. Tom. 3. p. 520. Canoni [...]s, Schoolemen, and Civill Lawyers; That a defensive warre undertaken onely for necessary defence, doth not pro­p [...]ly deserve the nam of warre, but onely of Defence: That it is no l [...]vying of warre at all, (which implies an active offen [...]ive, not passive defensive raising of forces, and so no Treason nor offence within the statute of 25. E. 3. c. 2. as the Parliament, the onely proper Iudge of Treasons, hath already resolved in point of Law but a fa­culty onely of defence Cuilibet Omni Iure, ipsoque Rationis Ductu Permissa; &c. permitted to every one By all Law, (or right) and by the very conduct of reason, since to propulse violence and iniury is permitted by the very Law of Nations. Hence of all the seven sorts of warre 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 slaine for defence of the Common-wealth, their memory shall live in perpetuall glory. And hence they give this Definition of a just Warre. Calv. Lexi­con. Jurid. Ib. ex Hotomano. and other forcited. Warre is a Lawfull Defence against an imminent or praeceeding offence upon a publike or private cause, concluding: That if Defence be severed from Warre, it is a Sedition, not Warre; Although the Emperour himselfe de­nounce it; Yea, although the whole World combined together. Proclaime it: For the Emperour, a King, can no more lawfully hurt another in Warre, then he can take away his goods or life without cause. Therefore let Commentato [...]s b [...]awle eter­nally about Warre, yet they shall never justifie nor prove it lawfull, Nisi ex Defensio­ne Legitima; but when it proceeds from Lawfull defence, all Warres being rash and unjust, against those who justly defend themselves. This Warre then being underta­ken by the Parliament, onely for their owne, and the Kingdomes necessary defence, against the Kings invasive Armies and Cavalliers (especially, now after the Kings re­jection of all Honourable and safe termes of Peace and accommodation tendered to him by the Parliament:) must needs be just and lawfull; and so no Treason, nor Rebellion, in point of Law or Conscience; Since no Law of God, nor of the Realme, hath given the King any Authority or Commission at all to make this un­naturall Warre upon his Parliament, his people, to enslave their Soules and Bodies, or any inhibition to them, not to defend themselves in such a case.

These generall Considerations thus premised, wherein Law and Conscience walke hand in hand; I shall in the next place lay downe such particular grounds for the justification of this Warre, which are meerely Legall; extracted out of the bow­els of our knowne Lawes; which no professors of them can contradict.

First, it is unquestionable, that by the Common and Statute Law of the Land, the King himselfe, who cannot lawfully proclaime Warre against a Forraigne E­nemy, much lesse against his people, without his Parliaments previous assent, as I have elsewhere proved; cannot by his absolute Soveraigne Prerogative, either by ver­ball Commands, or Commissions under the great Seale of England, derive any lawfull or just Authority to any Generall, Captaine, Cavalliers, or person whatsoever, without [Page 11] Legall Triall and Conviction, to seize the Goods or Chattels of any his Subjects, much lesse, 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 vertue 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, Theeves, Burglarers, Felons, Murderers, both by Statute, and Common Law; As is clearely 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 Satutes 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 Priviledge of the Subject: newly Printed. Cooke lib. 5. fol. 50. 51. lib. 7. fol. 36. 37. lib. 8. fol. 125. to 129. Iudge Crooks and Huttons Arguments, against Shipmoney, with divers other Law-Bookes. Therefore the Cavalliers can no waies justifie, nor excuse their Wounding, Murthering, Imprisoning, Assaulting, Rob­bing, Pillaging, and spoiling of his Majesties people and Subjects, and making Warre upon them, by vertue of any Warrant or Commission from the King; but may justly and legally be apprehended, resisted, and proceeded against, as Murthe­rers, Rebels, Robbers, Felons, notwithstanding any pretended Royall Autho­rity to countenance their execrable unnaturall proceedings.

Secondly, It is irrefragable, that the Subjects in defence of their own Persons, Houses, Goods, Wives, Families, against such as violently assault them by open force of Armes, to wound, slay, beate, imprison, robbe, or plunder them, (though by the Kings own illegall Commission) may not onely lawfully arme themselves, and fortifie their houses (their Castles in Iudgement of Law,) against them; but re­fist, apprehend, disarme, beat, wound, repulse, kill them in their just necessary de­fence; not onely without guilt of Treason, or Rebellion, but of Tresspas, or the very least offence; And Servants in such Cases may lawfully justifie, not onely the beating, but killing of such persons, who assault their Masters persons, goods, or houses; as is expresly 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 Majesties Cavalliers, notwithstanding a­ny Commissions, and make a defensive Warre 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, ‘That the Sheriffes Iustices of Peace, Mayors, Constables [Page 12] and all other Officers of the Realme, may and ought by our Lawes and Statutes to raise the power of the Counties and places where they live, and command all persons to arme themselves to assist them upon their Command, when they see just cause (which commands they are all bound to obey under paine of imprisonment and fines, for their contemptuous disobediene herein:) to suppresse and withstand all, publicke breaches of the Peace, Riots, Routs, Robberies, Fraies, Tumults, Forci­ble Entries, and to apprehend, disarme, imprison, and bring to condigne punish­ment all Peace-breakers, Riotors, Trespassers, Robbers, Plunderers, Quarrellers, Murtherers, and Forces met together, to doe any unlawfull-Hostile act, (though by the Kings owne precept:) and in case they make resistance of their power, they may lawfully kill and slay them without crime or guilt, if they cannot other­wise suppresse or apprehend them: yea, the Sheriffes, and all other Officers may lawfully raise and arme the power of the County to apprehend Delinquents, by lawfull Warrants from the Parliament, or Processe out of other inferiour Courts of Iustice, when they contemptuously stand out against their Iustice, and will not render themselves to a Legall triall; in which service all are bound by Law to assist these Officers, who may lawfully slay such contemptuous Offenders, in case they can­not otherwise apprehend them.’ 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. Cooke lib. 5. fol. 92. 9. 3. with sundry other Bookes, 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 dishonour of the King and his Crowne; and that such resisters shall be imprisoned and fined, because they are desturbers of the Kings Peace, and of his Realme. And the expired Statute of 31. H. 6. cap. 2. Enacted: That if any Duke, Marquesse, Earle, Viscount, or Baron, com­plained of for any great Riots, Extortions, Oppressio [...]s, or any offence by them done a­gainst the Peace and Lawes, to any of the Kings Liege-people, should refuse to obey the Processe of he Kings Court, under his Great or-privie Seale, to him directed, to answer his said offenes; either by refusing to receive the said Processe, or dispiting it, on withdrawing himselfe f [...]r that cause, and not appearing after Proclamation made by the Sheriffe in the County, at the day prescribed by the Proclamation; that then hee 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 appeares 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 terme 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 offence was it then reputed, to disobey the Processe of Chancery, and other inferiour Courts of Iustice even in the greatest Peeres; how much greater crime then is, and must it be, contemptuously to disobey the Summons, [Page 13] Processe, and Officers of the Parliament it selfe, 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 maintaine its honour, power, and priviledges to the utter­most? which many of them now exceedingly vilifie, and trample under feete: 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 Councells of the King nor his heires; nor be of the Kings Counsell nor of his heires; Therefore it is un­dubitable, that the Sherifes, Iustices of Peace, Majors, Constables, Leivtenantes, Cap­taines, and other Officers in every County through the Realme, may by their owne Authority (much more by an Ordinance and Act of association of both houses) raise all the power of the County, & all the people by vertue of such commands may lawful­ly meete together in Armes to suppresse the riots, burglaries, rapines, plunders, butche­ries, spoyling, robberies, and armed violence of his Majesties Cavaleers; and apprehend, imprison, slay, arraigne, execute them as common enemies to the kingdomes peace and welfare, even by the knowne Common Law, and Statutes of the Realme, and seife Delinquents notwithstanding any royall Commission or personal commands they may or can produce.

Fourthly, it is most certaine, 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, See princi­pally 48. H. 3. Rot. Pat. Mem 7. & Mem. 11 Dorss. is bound both in duty and conscience, when there is necessary occasion, to Array and Arme himselfe to resist the invasions, and assaults of open enemies of the Realme, especially of Forraigners, as is cleare by infinite * Presidents, cited by the Kings owne Councell, 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 referre the Rea­der for fuller Satisfaction:) See Aristot. Pol. l. 1, c, 1, 2, & l. 2, 3. Po­lib. hist. l. 6. Fortescue. c. 9. to 15. and by the expresse statutes of 1 E. 3. c. 5. 25. E. 3. c. 8. and 4. H. 4. c. 13. The reason is from the Originall compact and mutuall stipula­tion of every member of any Republicke, State or Society of men for mutuall defence one of another upon all occasions of invasion, made at their first association and in­corporation into a Republike, state, kingdome, Nation, of which we have a preg­nant example, Iudg. 20. 1. to 48. If then the King himselfe shall introduce forraigne Forces and enemies into his Realme to levie war against it, or shall himself become an open enemie 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, Kingdome against these forraigne and domesticke Forces, and the King himselfe if he joyne with them; as farre forth as they are bound to doe it upon the Kings own Writ and Commission, in case he joyned with the Parliament and Kingdome against them; the necessary defence and preservation of the Kingdome and themselves (and of the King onely so farre forth as he shewes himselfe a King and Patron, not an ene­mie of his Kingdome, and Subjects,) being the sole ground of their engagement in such defensive warres: according to this notable resolution of Cicero, De Offici [...]. l. 2. p. 626. 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. [Page 14] qui lacerant omni scelere Patriam, & n [...]a sunditus delenda occupati & sunt & fuerunt: and seeing kings themselves as well as Subjects are bound to Exod. 32. 9. to 15. 32. Num. 14. 11. to 15. 2 Sam 8. 9. 17. 1. Chr. 21. 17. Iohn 10. 11. 15. c. 11. 48. 49. 50. hazard their lives for the preservation of their Kingdomes, and peoples safeti; and not to endanger the ruine of the Kingdome and people to preserve their owne lives and prerogatives, as I have elsewhere manifested; it cannot be denyed, but that every Subject, when the King is unjustly divided against his Kingdome, Parliament, and People, is mere obleiged to joyne with the kingdome, Parliament, and his Native dearest Countrey, (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 lesse neede of helpe, and no such danger of ruine to the whole Realme and Nation, when the King joynes with them against forraigne invading enemies; as there is when the king himselfe becomes an open intestine Foe unto them, against his Oath and Daty: and the Cicero de Ligibus. Peoples safety being the Supremest Law, & the Houses of Parliament the most Soveraigne Authoritie, they ought in such unhappie cases of extremitie and division to oversway all Subjects, to contribute their best assistance for their necessary just defence, even against the king himself and all his Partisans, who take up Hostile Armes against them, and not to assist them to ruine their owne Country, Kingdome, Nation, as many as now over-rashly do.

Fifthly, I conceive it cleare Law, that if the King himselfe, or his Courtiers with him, shall wrongfully assault any of his Subjects to wound, rob, or murther them without just cause, that the subjects, without any guilt of Treason or Rebellion, may not onely in their owne defense resist the King and his Courtiers assaults in such a case, and hold their hands (as Resolution of Conscience. Sect. 2. Doctor Ferne himselfe accords) but likewise close with, and disarme them; and if the King or his Courtiers receive any blowes, wounds, in such a case; or be casually slaine, it is neither Treason nor Murder, in the Defendants, who had no Treasonable nor murtherous intention at all in them, but onely endeavoured their own just defence, attempting nothing at all against the kings lawful Royall autho­rity: as is cleare by all Law See Stam­fords Pleas: f. 14. 15. 16. 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 see Andrew Favine his Theatre of Honour l. 10. c. 5. 6. 7. Halls Chron. H. 8. f. 6. 7. 9. 11. 12. 58. 63. 68. 78 85. 91. 95. 146. 154. frequent with the Kings of England, France, and other Princes, for triall of their man hood, to runne at Iousts and fight at Barriers, not onely with forraigners, but with their owne valiantest L [...]rds and Knights, of which there are various Examples. In these Martiall disports, by the very Law of Arm [...]s, these Subjects have not onely defended them­selves against their kings assaults and blowes; but retorted lance for lance, stroke for stroke, and sometimes unborsed, disarmed, and wounded their Kings, our Hall An. 16. H. 8. f. 122. 123. King Henry the eight, being like to be slaine by the Earle of Suffolke, at a Tilting in the 16. yeare of his reigne: and no longer since then the yeare 1559. Henry the 2 ^d, King of France, was casually slaine in a loust by the Earle of Mountgommery, his Subject, (whom hee commanded to Iust one bout more with him against his will) whose Speare in the counter-blow ran so right into one of the Kings eyes, that the shivers of it peirced into his head, perished his braine and slew him: yet this was Iudged no Treason, Fellony, nor offence at all in the Earle, who had no ill intention. If then it hath ever beene re­puted lawfull and honourable, for Subiects in such militarie exercises, upon the chal­lenges of their kings, to defend themselves couragiously against their assaults, and thus to fight with and encounter them in a martiall manner, though there were no necessity for them to answer such a challenge; and the casuall wounding or slaying of the King by a Subiect in such a case be neither Treason nor Fellony: then much more must it be [Page 15] lawfull by the Law of Armes, Nature, and the kingdome, for the Parliament and sub­jects in a necessary, just, unavoydable warre, to defend, resist, repulse the kings and his Cavaleers-personall assaults, and returne them blow forblow, shot for shot, if they will wilfully invade them; and if the king or any of his Forces miscarry in this action, they must (like King Halls Chron. f. 123. 16. H. 8. Henry the 8 ^th when endangered by tilting) blame themselves alo [...]e, and have no other just legall remedie but patience, it being neither Treason, Rebellion, nor Murther in the defensive party, and most desperate folly and frenzie in any Prince, to engage himselfe in such a danger, when beneede not doe it. I reade of Generall History of France p. 227, 228. Fabians Chron part. 7. in his life; with others. Charles the first of France; that he fell sodainely destracted upon a message he rec [...]i­ved from an old poore man, as he was marching in the head of his Army; and thereupon thinking himselfe b [...]tray [...]d encountred his owne men, and slew two or three of them ere they were ware of him, wo [...]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 sens [...]s. I thinke no man in his right wits, will deeme this their action Treasonable or unlawfull; neither did the king or any in that age thus repute it. If then a King in an angry franticke passion (for Seneca de Ira. Ir. brevius furor est;) shall take up Armes against his loyall Subjects, and assault their persons to murther them and spoyle their goods; if they (by common consent in Parliament especially) shall forcibly resist, disarme or restraine his person, till his fury be appeased, and his judgement rectified by better councells; shall this be Treason, Rebellion, or Disloyaltie? God forbid: I thinke none but mad men can or will averte it. It was a great doubt in Law, till the statute of 33. H. 8. c. 20. setled it, If a party that had committed any high Treasons when he was of perfect memory; after accusation, examination, and confession thereof became madde or lunaticke; whether he should 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 Cooke. l. 4. f. 124. Beverlyes case, which resolve, [...]hat a Lunaticke or Non Compos cannot be guilty of murthe [...], fel n [...]y, [...] ­petite Treason, because having no understanding, and knowing not what he doth, he can [...]ave n [...] follonius intention) conceive, that a reall mad-man cannot be guilty of high Treason (though Sir Edward Cooke in Bev [...]rlies case, be of a contrary opinion) if he should as­sault or kill his king. And I suppose few will deeme Eadmerus, Malmes Hunt. Hoveden, Mat. West. Mat. Par Po­lychonicon, Fab. coxton, Holinsh. Grof. Speed, Daniel, and others in the life of Wil. Refus. Walter Terrils casuall killing of King William Rufus with the glance of his arrow from a tree, shot at a Deere, high Treason; neither was it then reputed so, or he prosecuted as a Traytor for it, because he had no malicious intention (as most thinke) against the King, or any thought to hurt him. But I conceive it out of question, if a king in a distracted furious passion with­out just cause, shall invade his subjects persons in an open hostile manner to destroy them; it neither is, nor can be Treason ner Rebellion in them, if in their owne neces­sary defence alone, they shall either casually wound or slay him contrary to their loyall intentions; and those See Stamford Bracton, Fitz­herbert, Brock, Cromp. Tit. T [...]eson & Coro [...]s. Statutes and Law-book [...]s which judge it high Treason, for any one maliciously and trayterously to imagine, compasse or conspire the death of the King; will not at all extend to such a case of meere just defence; since a conspi­racie or imagination to compasse or procure the Kings death, can neither be justly imagined nor presumed, in those who are but meerely defensive, no more then in o­ther common cases of one mans killing another in his owne inevitable defence with­out any precedent malice; in which a Pardon by Law, is granted of course: however, questionlesse it is no Treason nor murther at all to slay any of the kings souldiers and Cavaliers who are no kings, in such a defensive warre.

[Page 16] Sixthly, suppose the King should be captivated, or violently led away by any forraign or domesticke enemies to him and the kingdome, and carried along with them in the field, to countenance their warres and invasions upon his loyallest Subjects, by ille­gall warrants or Commissions fraudulently procured, or extorted from him. If the Parliament and Kingdome in such a case, should raise an Army to rescue the King out of their hands, and to that end encountring the enemies, should casually wound the King whiles they out of loyalty sought onely to rescue him; I would demaund of any Lawyer or Divine, whether this Act should be deemed Treason, Rebellion or Dis­loyalty in the Parliament or army? Or which of the two Armies should in point of Law or Conscience be reputed Rebells or Traytors in this case? those that come one­ly to rescue the King, and so fight really for him indeed, though against him in shew; and wound him in the rescue? Or those who in shew onely fought for him, that they might still detaine him captive to their wills? Doubtlesse there is no Lawyer, nor Theologue but would presently resolve in such a case, that the Parliaments Army which fought onely to rescue the King were the loyall Subjects; and the Malignants army who held him captive with them, the onely Rebels and traytors; and that the casuall wounding of him (proceeding not out of any malicious intention, but love and loyalty to redeeme him from captivity,) were no trespasse nor offence at all, being quite besides their thoughts: and for a direct president; It was the very case of King Mat. Par. An. 1266. p. 967. Speed p. 640. Dan. p. 180. 181. Ho­linsh. Graft. Stow, and o­thers. Henry the third; who (together with his sonne Prince Edward) being taken Prisoner by the Earle of Leycester in the battle of Lewis, and the Earle afterwards carrying him about in his Company in nature of a Prisoner, to countenance his actions, to the great discon­tent of the Prince, the Earle of Glocester and other Nobles; hereupon the Prince and they raising an Army, encountred the Earle, and his Porces in a battle at Evesha [...] where the King was personally present, slew the Earle, Routed his Army, and rescued the king; in this cruell battell, the In praesenti bello, Domi­nus Rex exti­tit vulneatus & morti paene vicinus, jaculo in eum ex im­proviso de. jecto, Mat. Par. Ibid. king himselfe (being wounded unawares with a Iavelin, by those who rescued him) was almost slaine, and lost much of his blood: yet in a Parliament soone after sommoned at Winchester, Anno 1266. the Earle and his Army were dis-inherited as Traytors and Rebels; but those who rescued them though with danger to his person, rewarded as his loyall subjects. And is not this the present case? A company of malignant ill Councellors, Delinquents, Prelates, Papists, have withdrawne his Majestie from his Parliament, raised an Army of Papists, Forraigners, Delinquents and Male-contents, to ruin the Parliament, Kingdome, Religion, Lawes, Liberties; to countenance this their designe, they detaine his Majestie with them, and engage him all they can on their side: the Parliament out of no disloyall intention, but onely to rescue his Majesties person out of their hands, to apprehend delinquents, preserve the Kingdome from spoyle, and defend their Priviledges, Persons, Liberties, estates, religion, from unjust invasions, have raised a defensive Army, which encountred these Forces at Edgehill, (where they say the King was present) slew the Lord Generall (Earle of Lindsey) with many others; and as they never intended, so they offered no kind of hurt or violence at all to his Majesties person then or since; and now full sore against their wils, Petitions, endeavours for peace, they are necessitated to continue this offensive warre, for their owne and the Kingdomes necessary preservation. The sole question is; Whether this Act, this Defensive Warre of the Parliament and their Forces be high Treason or Rebellion? and who are the Traytors and Rebells in this case? Certain­ly, if I understand any Law or Reason, the Parliament and their Forces are and must [Page 17] be innocent from these crimes; and their opposite Popish Malignant Cavaleers, the onely Rebels and Traytors; as this Parliament (the onely proper Judge of Treasons) hath See the Re­mens [...]r [...]nce of both Houses Nov. 2. 1642. already voted and declared them in point of Law.

Seventhly, it is Littleton sect. 378. Cook. Inst. Ib f. 233. l. 5. E. 4. 26. 27. 11. E. 4. 1. b. 15. E. 4. 3 6. Plowden p. 379. 380. 43. E. 3. c. 4 4. H. 7. c. 6. 7. Cooke l. 9 f. 50. 95. 96. 99. Little [...]s and other Law-bookes expresse resolutions; That if a man grant to another the Office of a Parkership, of a Parke for life, the estate which he hath is upon condition in Law (though not expressed) that he shall well and law­fully keepe the Parke, and doe what which to his Office belongeth to doe, or other­wise it shall be lawfull for the grantor and his heires 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 himselfe without sufficient warrant from his Lord, it is a direct forfaiture 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 forfaiture of his Office, even by a condition annexed to his Office by the very Common Law; shall a King, thinke you, lawfully murther, plunder and destroy his Subjects, his kingdome, without any forfaiture 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 royall Office of a King, (who is but a regall Keeper, or Isa. 78. 70. 71. 72. sheepheard 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 wilde beasts, are our Deere so deare unto it, and will it not much more provide for the security of our owne persons, Lives, Liberties, estates? shall not these be dearer to it than out Deere? How many See Charta de Fortesta, Rassals Abridg­ment, Title Forrests. 3. Jac. c. 13. Pe­trus Bieser sis de Instit-Epis­copi. Bibl. Pa­tr [...]m Tom 12. Pars 2. p. 944. Illud ni [...]ilo. minnis absur­dum, &c. riged Lawes have beene anciently, and of late yeares 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 Lawes for the preservation of the Subjects Lives, Liberties, estates be more inviolably observed, more severely prosecuted? May a Forrester, Warrener, or Keeper of a Parke lawfully beate and kill another in defence of his Deere and other game, without any penalty or forfaiture at all, enjoying the Kings Peace as before this fact, by the expresse statute of 21. E. 1. Rastall Forrests 19. and Stamfords Pleas, l. 1. c. 5. 6. And cannot a poore subject defend his owne person, family, house, goods, Libertie, life, against the kings Forces, or Cavaleers without the danger of Treason or Rebellion, if the king himselfe be present with them, or they come armed with his unjust Commission? Certainely this is a too absur'd, irrationall, beastiall opinion for any to beleeve. It is our Saviours own doubled argument, Mat. 6. 26. Luke 12. 24. Behold the fowles of the ayre, and consider the Ravens, for they neither sow nor reape, neither have store-house, 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 sparrowes sold for a farthing? and not one of them shall fall to the ground without your Father: But the very haires of your head are all numbred: Feare 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. Gen. 1. 28. 29. 30. c. 92. Psa. 8. 4. to. 9. Men are the Soveraigne Lords of all the Creatures, of farre more excellencie 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 flocke over which the holy Ghost hath made [Page 18] you over-seers to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his owne blood: and God himselfe hath given this expresse inhibition even to Psal. [...]05. 14. 15. 1 Chr. 16. 20 21. See the Vindica­tion and Re­vindication of this Text. Kings themselves, con­cerning his and their peoples 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 Gods owne Image; men redeemed and pur­chased by the blood of Christ; men made Rev. 1. 6. c. 5. 10. c. 20. 6. Kings and Priests to God their Father, whom God himselfe hath expressely prohibited Kings themselves to touch or harme; not be allowed liberty to defend their persons, houses, lives, liberties, without offence or Trea­son, against Kings or any their Cavaleers assaults, by the Law of God, the Common or statute Law of the Realme; 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 steale their Deere or Connies? Are they not much better, much dearer to God, to Kings, then foules? then Sparrowes? then Oxen? then Deere? and their lives, their blood more precious then theirs? surely the Scripture is expresse: that Psal. 71. 14. Ps. 116. 15. precious in the sight of the Lord is the blood, the death of his Saints; and therefore Gen. 9. 6. Mat. 26. 52. he that sheddeth mans blood (be he whom he will in an unlawfull way) by man shall his blood he shed; if not in a judiciall way, yet by way of just defence, 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 defence;) then it immediately followes; 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 warre with them, as the seven hea­ded beast there did v. 7. then both the faith and patience of the Saints themselves will binde their hands no longer, but give them free liberty in such an extremity (for their owne and the Churches preservation, in their just defence) 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 captivitie shall goe 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 judg [...]ment written: This honour (this pri­viledge in such cases) HAVE ALL THE SAINTS, Praise ye the Lord. And very good reason is there for it. For as Nature it selfe hath instructed Lyons, Beares, Wolves, Boares, Stagges, Backes, and most other beasts, not onely to defend themselves against the violence of one another, but even of Men their supreame Lords, when they assault and hunt them to take away their lives, over which God hath given men a lawfull power: much more then may men by natures dictate, defend their persons, lives against the unlawfull violence of their kings or Armies (over which God hath given them no power at all but in a legall way of justice for capitall offences) when they assault or make warre 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 owne defence, of which there are infinite examples in the See Tertul. & Cyprian de Spectaculis Onupbrius, Bulengerus, Lyp [...]ius, and others, De Theatris, Lu­dis Circensieus and Joannes Mariana de­spectaculis. Roman and Spanish Histo­ries, in those Amphithreatricall sports and spectacles wherein men encountred and fought with Lyons, Tygers. Beares, Buls and other savage Beasts; I shall onely recite some few examples even of Kings themselves, who have beene slaine and devoured by such beasts as they have chased: Graft. part. 4 p. 40. part. 5 f. 42 part. 6. p. 62. Mada [...] King of Britain (as Polycronicon, Fa­bien, [Page 19] Grafton and others record) being in his disport of hunting, was slain of the wilde beasts he pursued, when he had reigned 40. yeares: so was his sonne King Memphis slaine and destroyed in hunting in the same manner. Merindus King of Brittaine, was devoured by a Sea monster which he encountered: and Zonaras Annal. Tom. 3. f. 15. Mun­s [...]eri Cosmeg. l. 4. c. 50. p. 1104. Basilius the 35 Emperour of Constantinople hunting a Stag, of an extraordinary greatnesse, and thinking to cut off his necke with his sword; the Stagge ran fiercely at him, gored him with his hornes on which he tossed him, bruised his entralls, whereof he dyed some few dayes af­ter, and had beene slaine immediately, on the beasts hornes, had not one there present drawne his sword and cut off his girdle, by which he hung on the hornes, to whom he gave a very ill requitall for this loyall service: other stories of kings sla [...]ne by beasts in their owne defence occure in story, and examples of kings slaine by men in and for their preservation, are almost innumerable: that of our king Mat. West. An 946. p. 946. Malm [...]s­Hunting. Fab. Graft, Holins. Speed, and o­thers in his life. Edmond is observable among others, who as our Historians write being at a feast at Pulkers Church on Saint Augu­stines day, espied a theese named Leof, whom he had formerly banished, sitting in the Hall, whereupon he leapt over the Table, assaulted Leof, and plucked him by the haire of the head to the ground; who in his owne defence, wounded the king to death with a knife, hurt many of his servants, and at length was himselfe hewen all in peeces. But that of our King Hoved. [...]. pars posterior. p. 791. Mat. Paris, Mat. Wesim. Polye. Fab. Walsi [...]g. Holinsh Graf. Speed, Daniel in the life of Rich. 2. Richard the 1. is more remarkeable, who being shot in the arme 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 dye 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 mischiefe? To whom he boldly replyed: 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 slaine thee, who hast done such and so great mischiefe to the world. The king hea­ring this his magnanimous answer, released him from his bonds, (though he slew the rest) and not onely forgave him his death, but commanded an hundred shillings to be given him. If then bruites by the very law of Nature have thus defended themselves against kings, who have violently assaulted them, even to the casuall death of the assailants: Why men by the selfesame Law, may not justly defend themselves against the unjust assailing warres 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, onely to accomplish their owne pernicious designes, would make no scruple of such a necessary defensive wars and resistances lawfulnesse, were the case but really their own; and those Papists and Cavalieers who now take up armes against the Parliament, the supreamest lawfull power in the Realme, and their owne native Country, without checke of Conscience, would doubtlesse make no bones at all forcibly to resist or fight against the King himselfe, should he but really joyne with the Parliaments Army, against them and their designes; there being never any Souldier or Polititian, but those onely who were truely sanctified and religious, that made any conscience of fighting against, yea murthering of his naturall king, not onely in a lawfull defensive warre, but in a Trayterous and Rebellious manner too, if he might thereby advantage or promote his owne particular interests, as is evident by the coun­cell and speech of Davids souldiers, and King Saul himselfe. 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 Coun­cell [Page 20] of A [...]itophell, which pleased Absolon, and all the Elders of Israel well, 2 Sam 17. 1. 2. 3. 4 and the infinite number of Emperours, of Kings, which have beene trayte­rously, and rebelliously slaine, without any just occasion by their own Souldiers, and that in a meere offensive, not defensive way; above halfe the Roman, Grecian, and German Emperours dying of such assassinations, or poysonings, very few of them of meere naturall deathes, as the Histories of their lives declare.

Eightly, It is in a manner agreed by See Bishop Bilson, of Christiā sub­ject on, &c. part 3. p. 411 to 422. and the Authors there cited. Historians, Polititians, and Divines, that if a King will desert the defence and Protection of his people in times of warre and dan­ger, and neither ayde nor protect them against their enemies according to his Oath and Duty, they may in such a case of extremity, for their owne necessary defence and pre­servation, desert him, who deserteth them, and elect another King, who can and will protect them from utter ruin. Vpon this very ground the Speed. hist. l. 6 c. 5. 4. l 7. 6. [...]. 4. Camb. Brit. p. [...]07. 108 &c See Holinsh. Poly. Gras. Brittons of this Nati­on after many hundred yeares subjection to the Roman Emperors, rejected their yoake 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 Jacob [...] Val­de sius de Dig­nitate Regum Regn. Hisp. c. 18. Franciscus Ta­rapha de Re­g [...]bus Hispa­niae, Michael Ritius de Re­gibus Hisp. l. 2. Manst. Cosm. l. 2 c 20. Spaniards being deserted by the Roman Emperors and left as a prey to their enemies, abandoned their government, and elected them Kings of their owne to protect them, which they justified to be lawfull for them to doe. And in like manner the Romans and Italians being forsaken of the Emperour Constantine, when they were invaded by See Bishop Bilsons true difference, &c. p. 3. 411. to 416. and the Appendix here. p. 8. 9. Aistulfus King of the Lumbards; Elected Charles the Great for their Emperour, and created a new Empire in the West, distinct from that of Constantinople in the East, which Bishop Bilson himselfe concludes they might lawfully doe, in point of conscience. So Aventinus A [...]i. l. 3. The generall hist. of France in his life. See the Appendix. Childerick being unfit to governe, and unable to repulse the enemies of the French which invaded his territories; there­upon by the advise of Pope Zachary, 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; Vpon this very ground the See Grim­stans Imperi­all history in their lives, & and the Ap­pendix. Emperours Charles the third, and Wenceslius were deposed, as being unable and unfit to defend and governe the Empire, and others elected Emperors in their steeds, Thus The Gene­rall History of Spaine p. 455. Mahomet the blinde, King of Granado, was in the yeare 1309. deposed by his owne Brother, Nobles, and Subjects, who were discontented to be governed by a blinde King, who could not lead them to the warres in person. And Gras [...]. part 7 p 85. Bu­chanon Re­mon Scot. l. 4. p. 121. Ethodius the 2 ^d king of Scotland, being dull of wit, given to avarice, and nothing meete to governe the Realme; thereupon the Nobles tooke upon them the governmēt, appointing Rulers in every Province, & so continued them all his reigne, 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 regall power. And not to multiply cases or examples of this nature: Theatre of Honour l. 2. c. 13. p. 183. Andrew Favine in his Theatre of Honour, out of the Chronicle of Laureshe [...]m and Aimonius in his 4 ^th Booke of the History of France, relates a notable resolution given by the Parlia­ment & Estates of France in this very point. In the yeare 803. Lewes 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 judgement of the said Parliament, to which of them the kingdome should be­long. The elder of these two brethren was named Meligastus, and the younger Celea­draus, Now albeit the custome of the said kingdome, adjudged the Crowne to the eldest, according to the right of Primegeniture, allowed and practised by the Law of [Page 21] 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 universall consent of the kingdome, 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 Kingdome 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 See Part. neere the end. some of our ancient British and Saxons Kings Reignes when the right heire to the Crowne was an infant, unable to defend his kingdome and people against invading enemies, the Crowne hath commonly descended to the Vncle or next heire of full age, who was able to protect them and repulse their enemies, till the right heire accompli­shed his compleat age, as I have elsewhere manifested. If then a Kingdome by gene­rall consent; may elect a new King to defend and preserve it, in case of invasion and eminent danger of ruine by forraigne enemies, when their present King either cannot, or will not doe 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 certainely by equall, semblable and greater reason, subjects may lawfully take up necessary defensive Armes against their Kings, when they shall not onely desert, but actually invade and wage warre against them, destroy and wast them in an open Hostile manner, and handle them as cruelly as the worst of enemies: such a wilfull unnaturall Hostile invasion, being farre worse than any cowardly or bare desertion of thē when they are invaded by a forraign enemy. And if Kings in case of sottishnesse or Lunacy may be lawfully deposed from their kingdomes by common consent of their Realmes, when they are altogether unfit or unable to governe, 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 wilfully and maliciously, contrary to their oath and duty, cast off their Royall governments, the protection of their subjects, and wage open warre against them, to enslave or ruine them. If a Father shall violently and unjustly assault his sonne, a husband his wife, a master his servant, a Major or other inferior Officer, a Citizen to murther, maime, or ruine them; They may in such a case by See Summ [...] Rosella Tit. Bel. um. the Law of Nature, God man, resist, repulse them in their owne defence without any crime at all, as dayly practise ex­perimentally manifests; yea they may sweare the peace against them, and have a Writ Fitz Nat. Brevium f. 80. 81. de securitate Pacis in such cases. Therefore by the selfesame reason they may resist the King and his Army in like cases; there being no more humane nor divine Law against resistance in the one case, than in the other.

Finally, it is the resolution of Common weale l 2. c [...] 5. 220. 221. John Bodin and others, who deny the lawfulnesse of Subjects taking up Armes against their Soveraigne Prince, or offering violence to his person, though he become a Tyrant: ‘ That if a Soveraigne Prince or King by lawfull election or succession turne a Tyrant, he may lawfully (at his Subjects request) be invaded resisted, condemned or slaine by a forraigne Prince. For as of all Noble acts, none is more honourable or glorious, then by way of fact to defend the honour, goods, and l [...]ves of such as are unjustly oppressed by the power of the more mighty, especially the gate [Page 22] of Iustice being shut against them: thus did Moses seeing his brother the Israelite beaten and wronged by the Egyptian, and no meanes to have redresse of his wrongs: So it is a most faire and magnificall thing for a Prince to take up Armes to releive a whole Nation and people, unjustly oppressed by the cruelty of a Tyrant: as did the great Hercu'es who travelling over a great part of the world with wonderfull power and valour destroyed many most horrible monsters, that is to say, Tyrants; and so delive­red people, for which he was numbred among the gods, his posterity for many worlds of yeares after, holding most great Kingdomes. And other imitators of his vertue as Dio, Timoilion, Aratus, Harmodius, Aristogiton, with other such honoura­ble Princes, bearing Titles of chastisers, and correctors of Tyrants, And for that onely cause Tamerlain Emperour of the Tartars, denounced warre unto See Knols Turkish Hist. in his life. Bajazet King of the Turkes, who then besieged Constantinople, saying, That he was comming to chastise his Tyrannie, and to deliver the afflicted people; and vanquishing him in battle, routed his Army, and taking the Tyrant prisoner, he kept him in chains in an Iron Cage till he dyed. Neither in this case is it materiall that such a vertuous Prince being a stranger, proceede against a Tyrant by open force, or fiercenesse, or else by way of justice. True it is that a valient and worthy Prince, having the Tyrant in his power, shall gaine more honour by bringing him unto his tryall, to chastise him as a murtherer a manqueller, and a robber; rather than to use the Law of Armes against him. Where­fore let us resolve on this, that it is lawfull for any stranger (Prince) to kill a Tyrant, that is to say, a man of all men infamed, and notorious for the oppression, murder, and slaughter of his subjects and people.’ And in this sort, our Speede Hist. p. 1193. 1194 The History of the Nether­lands, and the Swedish In­telligencer. Queene Elizabeth ayded the Low-Countries against the Tyrannie and oppressions of the King of Spaine: and the King of Sweden of late yeares the Princes of Germany against the Tyranny and usurpations of the Emperor, upon their sollicitation, If then, it be thus lawfull for Subjects to call in forraigne Princes to releeve them against the Tyrannie and oppres­sions of their kings (as the Barons in Mat. Par. Mat. West. Hoved. Speed, Holish. Fab. Graft. Daniel in his life. King Iohns time prayed in ayde from Philip and Lewis of France against his tyrannie) and those Princes in such cases, may justly kill, depose, or judicially condemne these oppressing Kings and put them to death. I conceive these whole kingdomes and Parliaments may with farre better reason, lesse danger, and greater safety to themselvs, their Kings and Realmes take up defensive Armes of their owne to repulse their violence. For if they may lawfully helpe them­selves and vindicate their Liberties from their Kings encroachments by the assistance and Armes of forraigne Princes who have no relation to them, nor particular interest in the differences betweene their kings and them, which can hardly be effected with­out subjecting themselves to a forraigne power; the death or deposition of the oppres­sing King: much more may they defend and releeve themselves against him by their owne domesticke Forces, if they be able, by generall consent of the Realme; because they have a particular interest and ingagement to defend their owne persons, estates, liberties, which forraigners want; and by such domesticke Forces may prevent a for­raigne subjection, preserve the life of the oppressing Prince, and succession of the Crowne in the hereditary line; which See Knols Turkish Hist. of the calling in the Turke into Graecia and Cambdin & Speed of the Brittaines calling in the Saxons which proved their ruin and con­quest. forraigne Armies most commonly endanger. And certainely it is all one in point of Reason, State, Law, Conscience, for Subjects to relieve themselves, and make a defensive warre against their Soveraigne by for­raigne Princes Armes, as by their owne: and if the first be just and lawfull, as all men generally grant without contradiction; and Bracton to l. 2. c. 16. I see no colour but [Page 23] the latter must bee just and lawfull too, yea then the first rather, because lesse dan­gerous, lesse inconvenient to King and Kingdome.

From Reasons, I shall next proceed to punctuall Authorities. Not to mention our ancient See Matth. Westm. Hun­tingdon, Gal­fridus Monu­metensis, Flo­rentius Wi­gorniensis, Po­lychronicon, Fabian, Cax­ton, Grafton, Holinshed, Speed, and o­thers, in their severall lives. Brittons taking up of armes 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, Ethelred, Beornard, Coolwulfe and Edwyn, who were forcibly expelled, and deprived by their Subjects for their bloody cruelties and oppressions; which actions the whole Kingdome then, and those Historians who recorded them since, reputed just and honourable, and no Treason nor Rebellion in Law or Conscience, being for the Kingdomes necessary preserva­tion, and the peoples just defence; which Histories I have elsewhere more large­ly related. Nor yet to insist long on the fore-mentioned Barons warre, against king Iohn, and Henry the 3 ^d. for regaining, establishing, preserving Magna Cha [...]ta, and other Liberties of the Realme, which our Kings had almost utterly deprived them off; I shall onely give you some few briefe observations touching these warres, to cleare them from those blacke aspersions of Rebellion, Treason, and the like, which some late Historians (especially Iohn Speed) to flatter those Kings to whom they Dedicated their Histories, have cast upon them, contrary to the judgement of our ancienter Choniclers, and Matthew Paris; who generally repute them lawfull and honourable.

First then consider, what opinion the Prelates, Barons, and Kingdome in generall, had of these Warres at first, Matth. Far [...] Hist. Angl. p. 234 to 240. Holinshed, Grafton, Speed, Fabian and Daniel, p. 140 141. 142. 143. Anno 1414. in a Parliament held at Pauls the 16. yeare of King Iohns raigne, Steven Langton Archbishop of Canterbury, produced a Charter of King Henry the First, whereby he granted the Ancient Liberties of the Kingdome of England (which had by his Predecessors beene oppressed with unjust exa­ctions, according to the Lawes of King Edward, with those emendations, which his Fa­ther, by the counsell of his Barons, did ratifie: which Charter being read before the Barons, they much rejoyced; 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 publike solemne Oath, had they deemed a Warre against the King, for recovery, or defence of these their Liberties unlawfull, and no lesse 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 Iohn refused to confirme and restore unto them those Liberties (the Rights of the Kingdome) they would make Warre upon him, and withdraw themselves from his Allegiance, untill he had ratified them all w [...]th his Charter under his great Seale. And further agreed, after Christmas to Petition him for the same, and in the meane 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 compell him to satisfie their de­mand. After Christmas they repaire in a Military manner to the King, lying in the new Temple, urging their desires with great vehemencie: the King seeing their resolution and inclination to warre, made answer, That for the matter they requi­red, he would take consideration till after Easter next, In the meane time, he tooke up­on him the Crosse, rather through feare, then devotion, supposing himselfe to bee [Page 24] more safe under that Protection: And to shew his desperate malice and wilfulnesse (who rather then not to have an absolute domination over his people, to doe what he listed, would be any thing himselfe 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, intituled the great King of Affrica, Morocco, and Spaine; wherein he offered to render un­to him his Kingdome, and to hold the same by tribute from him as his Soveraigne Lord; to forgoe the Christian Faith, as vaine, and to receive that of Mahomet, im­ploying Thomas Hardington and Ralph Fitz-Nicholas, Knights, and Robert of Lon­don Clerke, Commissioners in this negotiation; whose manner of accesse to this great King, with the delivery of their Message, and King Johns Charter to that ef­fect, are at large recited in Mathew 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 Kingdome, (governed by an annointed and Crowned King, knowne 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 basenesse and impiety of the Offerer, that fetching a deepe sigh from his heart, he answered, ‘I have never read nor heard, of any King possessing so pro­sperous a Kingdome, subject and obedient to him, who would thus willingly ruine his Principality, as of free to make it tributary, of his owne to make it anothers, of happy to make it miserable, and to submit himself to anothers pleasure, as one conque­red without a wound. But I have heard and read of many, who with effusion and losse of much blood (which was laudable) have procured liberty to themselves; mo­do autem audio, quod Dominus vester miser, deses & imbellis, qui nullo nullior est, de li­bero servus fieri desiderat, qui omnium mortalium miserrimus est. After which he said; That the King was unworthy of his Confederacie; and looking on the two Knights with a sterne countenance,’ he commanded them to depart instantly out of his presence, and to see his face no more; whereupon they departing with shame; hee charged Robert the Clerke, to informe him truely what manner of person King Iohn was: who replied, ‘That he was rather a Tyrant then a King; rather a Subverter then a Gover­nour; a Subverter of his owne Subjects, and a Fosterer of Strangers; a Lyon to his owne Subjects, a Lambe to Aliens and Rebels; who by his sloathfulnesse had lost the Dutchy of Normandy, and many other Lands, and moreover thirsted to lose and destroy the Kingdome of England: An unsatiable Extortioner of mo­ney; an invader and destroyer of the possessions of his naturall people, &c.’ When Miramumalim heard this, he not onely despised, as at first, but detested and accursed him, and said: ‘Why doe the miserable English permit such a one to raigne and domi­neer over them?’ Truely, they are effeminate and flavish: To which Robert answe­red: ‘the English are the most patient of all men, untill they are offended and dam­nified beyond measure. But now they are angry, like a Lion or Elephant, when he perceives himselfe hurt or bloody; and though late, they purpose and endeavour to shake the yoake of the Oppressor from their necks which lie under it:’ Whereupon he reprehended the overmuch patience and fearefulnesse of the English; and dismissed these Messengers; who returning, and relating his Answer to King Iohn, he was ex­ceeding sorrowfull, and in much bitternesse of Spirit, that he was thus contemned and disapointed of his purpose. Yet persisting in his pre-conceived wicked designe to [Page 25] ruine his Kingdome and people, and hating all the Nobility and Gentry of England, with a viperous Venom, he sets upon another course; and knowing A true Character of a Pope, 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 wickednesse: Thereupon he hastily dispatcheth mes­sengers to him with great summes 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 favoured; which things he greedily desired, that he might wrecke 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 meane 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 comming to answer their demands. And being come to Brackley with their Army, the King sends the Earle of Pembroke Mariscall, and the Archbishop of Can­terbury, with others, to demand of them, what were those Lawes and Liberties they re­quired? to whom they shewed 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 Kingdome? and swore he would never grant those Articles, whereby himselfe should be made a Servant. So harsh a thing is it to a power, that is once gotten out into the wide libertie of his will, to heare againe of any redu­cing within his Circle. Vpon this answer, the Barons resolve to seize the Kings Ca­stles; constitute Robert Fitz-walter their Generall, entituling him, Mariscall of the ARMY of GOD, and of HOLY CHVRCH: A Title they would ne­ver have given their Generall, or Army, had they deemed this Warre unlawfull in Law or Conscience. After which they tooke 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 questionlesse, they would not have done, had they not beleeved this Warre to be just and lawfull. King Iohn seeing himselfe in a manner generally forsaken of all his people, and Nobles, having scarce 7. Knights faithfull to him (another strong argument, that the peo­ple and Kingdome generally apprehended, this taking up armes against the King to regaine, to preserve their hereditary Rights and Liberties, to be lawfull) counter­feits the Seales of the Bishops, and writes in their Names to all Nations, That the English were all Apostates, and whosoever would come to invade them, hee, by the Popes consent, would conferre 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 himselfe 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 Mathew Paris, another argument of the justice of this cause and warre, in their beliefes and consciences; at last condescended to grant and con­firme their Liberties, which he did at Running-Meade, in such sort as I have former­ly related. And though the Pope afterwards for his owne private ends and interest, (bribed by King Iohn, who resigned his Kingdome to him, and became his Vassall, without his peoples consent, which resignation was judged voide,) excommunicated [Page 26] the Barons withall their assistance; Qui Ioha [...]nem illustrum Regim Anglorum Cruce signatum, ET VASALLVM ROMANAE ECCLESIAE (an ho­nourable Title indeed for a King) pers quuntur, molientes ei Regnum auferre (which this Pope him selfe did but few yeares before, giving his Crown and Kingdome it selfe 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, 1 Pag. 235. 267. 268. but selfe-respects to support the Popes usurped interest and Title to the Realme; 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 ‘ Londoners, Barons, with divers Prelates then contemning it, as pronounced upon false suggestions, and especi­ally for this cause, that the ordering of temporall affaires belonged not to the Pope,’ Cum Petro Apostolo & ejus Successoribus non nisi Ecclesiasticarum dispositio rerum a Domino sit collata potestas. And using likewise these memorable Speeches in those blind daies 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 lawfulnesse of this their taking up of armes, and the warre insuing it being but for their owne just defence, when the King afterwards with fire, sword, and bloody barbarous Forraigne Forces wasted his Realme in a most inhu­mane, tyrannicall maner, Factus de Rege Tyrannus; imo in bestialem prorumpens ferita­tem, &c. which necessitated the Barons for their own preservation and the Kingdoms (devoted by this unnaturall Prince to Vassallage and utter desolation) to elect Lewis of France for their King: Who, together with the Peeres and Estates of France, assembled at Lions concerning this Election; resolved it to be just and law­full, and the Barons Defensive Warres against, and rejection of King Iohn for his Tyranny and oppressions, to be just and honourable, since they did but flee to these extraordinary remedies, and seeke for justice abroad, when they were denied it by him that should give it them in as ordinary way at home, chosing a King, in place of a Tyrant, as Hist. Angl. pag. 270. 271 Matthew Paris, with the Pag. 123. 122. generall History of France (written by Iohn de Serres, and Englished by Edward Grimston) more largely manifest.

Secondly, the Lawfulnesse and justnesse of the Barons Warres in Defence of Mag­na Charta, with other their Hereditary Rights and Liberties, appeares 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 See part 1. p. 19. 20. force of Armes, or Menaces; and sometimes by faire termes, caused these Kings by new Acts of Parliament to ratifie Magnae Charta, the Char­ter of the Forest, with other Fundamentall Liberties, thus forcibly extorted from King Iohn at first; and constrained them to confirme him with their Oathes and solemne publicke Confirm. Chartarum. 25. E. 1. c. 4. Excommunications, to be published by the Bishops in their Dio [...]esse twice eve­ry yeare: oft solemnly vowing, and protesting, both in and out of Parliament, to de­fend [Page 27] these Lawes and Liberties, with their estates, armes, 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 armes against their Kings in defence or these Lawes and Privileges; neither would our Kings and Parliaments in times of Peace, have so frequently confirmed these Lawes and Immunities, as just and necessa­ry for the peoples welfare, had they reputed their former purchases and confirmati­ons by warre and armes, no lesse then Treason, or Rebellion. And if it were neither Treason nor Rebellion in the judgements of our Ancestors and those Parliaments which procured, and ratified Magna Charta, to take up armes in defence thereof; much lesse can it be Treason or Rebellion in the Parliament and Subjects now (by Votes, by Ordinances of both Houses) with force of armes to preserve, not only these their hereditarie Charters, Lawes, Priviledges, 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 lawfulnesse of most of the Barons Warres in King Henry the 3 ^d. his Raigne, against this troublesome persidious King, in defence of their Lawes, Liberties, Estates, appeares first, by the Dialogue betweene Agnel­lus, a Frier minorite, one of King Henry his Counsell, (purposely sent to the Earle Marshall, then in armes against the King) and this Martiall Earle, in the Abbey of Morgan. Anno 1233. I will first relate the true state of that Warre, and then their Dialogue concerning it: Math. Paris Hist. p. 371. to 385. Daniel, p. 153. 154. See Holinsse, Graft. Speed. Matth. West. Anno 1233. King Henry by the ill counsell of Peter Bishop of Win­chester, removed all his English Officers, Counsellors, and Servants from his Court, and put Poictovines, and Forraigners in their places, being ruled wholly by them; withall he puts the English Garisons out of all his Castles, and substitutes Forraigners in them, which dayly arived both with Horse and armes in great multitudes, and much oppressed the people, calling them Traitors; so that the power and wealth of the Realme was wholly under their Command. The Earle Marshall seeing the Noble and Ignoble thus oppressed, and the rights of the Kingdome like utterly to be lost; pro­voked with a zeale of Iustice, associating to himselfe other Noble men, goes boldly to the King, reproves him in the hearing of many, ‘For calling in those Poictovines, by evill Counsell, to the oppression of the Kingdome, and of his naturall Subjects, and likewise of Lawes and Liberties; Humbly beseeching him, hastily to correct these excesses, which threatned the imminent subversion both of His Crowne and King­dome, which if he refused to doe, he and the other Nobles of the Realme, would withdraw themselves from his Counsell, as long as he harboured those Strangers.’ To which Peter of Winchester replyed: That the King might lawfully call in what stran­gers be would, for the Defence of his Kingdome and Crowne, and likwise so many, and such, as might compell his proud and rebellious Subjects to due Obedience. Where­upon the Earle Marshall and other Nobles, departing discontented from the Court, when they could get no other answer, promised firmely one to another; That for this cause which concerned them all, they would manfully fight, even to the separation of Soule and Body. After which, they seeing more Strangers arrive with Horse and armes every day, sent word to the King; That hee should foorthwith 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 Counsellours, out of the Realme, and consult of chusing them [Page 28] a new King. After these, and some other like passages, the King raysing an Army, besiegeth one of the Earles Castles; and not being able to winne it, and ashamed to raise his Seige without gaining it, he sent certaine Bishops to the Earle, and reque­sted him; that since he had besieged his Castle, and hee could not with Honour depart without winning it, which he could not doe by force, that the Earle to save his Honour would cause it to be surrended to him, upon this condition, That hee would restore it certainely to him within 15. dayes, and that by advise of the Bishops he would amend all things amisse in his Kingdome; for performance of which the Bi­shops became his Pledges, and the King appointed a meeting at Westminster, on a set day betweene Him and the Lords: whereupon the Earle surrendred 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 Earle the Castle, according to promise, and threatning to subdue his other Castles; the Earle hereupon raiseth his Forces, winnes his Castle againe, routs divers of the Kings Forraigne Forces, at Gorsemond, Monmouth, and ‘other places; and invaded the lands of his Enemies. Vpon this occasion, Frier Ag­nellus (or Lambe) acquaints the Earle, what the King, together with his Counsell and Court, thought of his proceedings; to wit, that the King said, he had proceeded over traiterously, and unjustly against him, yet he was willing to receive him into fa­vour, if he would wholly submit himselfe to his mercy; and that others held it not just, safe, and profitable for him to doe it; because he had done wrong to the King, in that before the King had invaded his Lands or Person, he invaded and destroyed the Kings Lands, and slew his men; and if he should say, he did this in defence of his body and inheritance; they answered, no, because there was never any plot a­gainst either of them; and that were it true, yet he ought not thus to breake forth against the King his Lord, untill hee had certaine knowledge, that the King had such intensions against him: ET EX TVNC LICERET TALIA ATTEMPTARE; and from thenceforth he might lawfully attempt such things, (by the Courtiers and Friers owne Confessions:) Vpon which the Marshiall said to Frier Lambe: To the first they say, that I ought to submit my selfe, because I have invaded the King: it is not true, because the King himselfe, (though I have beene e­ver ready to stand to the Law and judgement of my Peeres in his Court, and have oft times requested it by many messengers betweene us, which he alwaies denied to grant) violently entred my Land, and invaded it against all justice: whom hoping in humility to please, I freely entred into a forme of peace with him, which was very prejudiciall to me: wherein he granted, that if on his part all things were not punctually performed toward me, I should be in my pristine state before that peace conclnded; namely, that I should be without this homage, and absolved from my allegiance to him, as I was at first by the Bishop of Saint Davids; Seeing then hee hath violated all the Articles of the Peace, IT WAS LAWFVLL FOR ME, According to my agreement, to recover what was mine owne; and to debilitate his power by all meanes; especially seeing he endeavoured my destruction, dis-inheritance, and seizing of my Body, of which I have certaine intelligence, and am able to prove it if neede be. And which is more, after the 15 daies truce, before I entred Wales, or made any defence, he deprived me of the Office of Marshall, without judgement, which belongs to me, and I have enjoyed by Inheritance, nei­ther would he by any meanes restore mee to it, though required. Whence I have [Page 29] plainely learned, that he will keepe no peace with me, seeing since the Peace hee handles me worse then before. Whereby I ceased to bee his Subject, and was absolved from his homage by him. Wherefore it was, and is lawfull for me to defend my selfe, and to withstand the malice of his Counsellors by all meanes. And whereas the Kings Counsellors say, it is profitable for me to submit to the Kings mercy, because he is more rich and powerfull then I am. It is true, the King is richer and more potent then I, but yet he is not more powerfull then God, who is Iustice it selfe, in whom I trust, in the confirmation and prosecution of my right, and of the Kingdomes. And whereas they say, the King can bring in Strangers of his kinred, who are neither Scots, nor French, nor Welsh, who shall make all his foes his Foot-stoole, and come in such multitudes, as they shall cover the face of the earth, and that he can raise seven men to my one: I neither trust in Strangers, nor desire their confederaciei nor will I invoke their aide, Vnlesse, which God forbid, inopinata & immutabilis, fuero compulsus necessitate; I shall be compelied by a sudden and immutable ne­cessity; and I beleeve by his Counsells ill advise he will quickly bring in such mul­titudes of Strangers, that he will not be able to free the Kingdome of them againe; for I have learned from credible men, that the Bishop of Winchester is bound to the Emperour, that he will make the Kingdome of England subject to him; which God in his providence avert. And whereas they say, That I may confide in the King and his Counsell, because the King is mercifull, credible, &c. It may well be that the King is mercifull; but he is seduced be the Counsell of those, by whom we feele our selves much hurt; and he is Noble and credible (whom God long preserve so) as much as in him lies; but as for his Counsell, I say, that no one promise made to me, was ever yet kept, and they have violated many corporall Oathes made to me, and the Oathes they tooke for observing Magna Charta, for which they re­maine excommunicate and perjured. Yea, they are enjured concerning the faithfull Counsell which they have sworne to give to our Lord the King, when as they have wilfully given him the Counsell of Achitophel, against justice; and corrupted the just Lawes they have sworne to keepe, and introduced unusuall ones: for which, and for many other things, for which neither God nor man ought to trust them, or their complices, are they not every one excommunicated?’

‘Whereas the said Counsellors of the King say, that I invaded the Kings body at Gorsmund Castle, before the King had entred my Land; and so I did injurie to the King, for which I ought to implore his mercie, least others should take example thence to raise up Armes against the King. I answer, that I was not there in person; and if any of my Family were thereby chance, they invaded onely the Family of the King, not the person of the King: which yet if they had done, it were no wonder, seeing the king came with his Army into my Land, that he might in­vade me, and oppresse me by all the meanes he could, which may appeare to all by the tenor of his Letters, by which hee made a generall assembly throughout England against my Army. And since the premises objected against mee are false, [Page 30] and it is true, that the King hath treated me worse since the time I expected his mercy, then any time before, and doth yet use the same Counsell as then; and since he endeavours precisely to follow their Counsels in all things, by whose advise I suffer all the premised grievances; I ought not to prostitute my selfe to his mercy. Neither would this be for the Kings honour, that I should consent un­to his will, which is not grounded upon reason. Yea, I should doe an injury to him, and to Iustice, which he ought to use towards his Subjects, and to maintaine. And I should give an ill example to all, by deserting Iustice, and the prosecution of right, for an erronious will against all Iustice, and the injury of the Subjects: For by this it would appeare, that we loved our worldly possessions, more then Iustice it selfe. And whereas the Kings Counsellours object, that wee have combined with the Kings capitall enemies, namely, the French, Scots, Welsh, out of hatred and dam­mage to king and kingdome: That of the French is altogether false, and that of the Scots and Welsh too; excepting the king of Scots, and Leoline Prince of North­wales; who were not the kings enemies, but faithfull friends, untill by injuries offe­red them by the King and his Counsell, they were by coertion against their wills, ali­enated from their fidelitie, as I am. And for this cause I am confederated with them, that we may the better being united, then separated, regaine and defend our rights, of which we are unjustly deprived, and in a great part spoiled. Whereas the Kings Counsell propose, that I ought not to confide in my Confederates, because the King, without any great hurt to his Land, can easily separate them from my friend­ship: Of this I make no great doubt, but by this the iniquity of his Counsellors doth most of all appeare: that in some sort they would cause the King to sustaine losse, by those whom he specially calls, capitall enemies, to injure mee who have alwaies beene his faithfull Subject, whiles I remained with him, and yet would be so, if he would restore to me and my friends our right. Whereas the said Coun­sellors say, that the Pope and Church of Rome, doe specially love the King and king­dome, and will Excommunicate all his adversaries, which thing is even at the dores, because they have already sent for a Legate: It pleaseth mee well, said the Marshall; because the more they love the King and Kingdome, by so much the more will they desire that the King should treat his Realme and Subjects, accor­ding to justice: And I am well pleased they should excommunicate the adversa­ries of the Kingdome, because they are those who give Counsell against Iustice, whom workes will manifest; because Iustice and Peace have kissed each other; and because of this, where Iustice is corrupted, Peace is likewise violated. Also I am pleased that a Legate is comming, because the more discreet men shall heare our ju­stice, by so much the more vilely shall the adversaries of Iustice be confounded. In which notable discourse we see the lawfullnesse of a necessary defensive Warre yeelded and justified both by the King, his Counsell, and the Earle Marshall, as well against the King himselfe, if he invade his Subjects first, as any of his Forces who assist him. After which the Marshall slew many of his Enemies by an Ambuscado, while they thought to surprise him, and wasted and spoiled their goods, houses, lands; observing this generall laudable rule which they made, to doe no hurt, nor ill to any one, but to the Kings evill Counsellors by whom they were banished, whose goods, houses, woods, Orchards, they spoiled, burnt, and rooted up. The King remaining at Glocester, heard of these proceedings of the Marshall, but his forces be­ing [Page 31] too weake, he durst not encounter him, but retired to Winchester with Bishop Peter, confounded with over much shame, leaving that Country to be wasted by his adversaries; where innumerable carcases of those there slaine lay naked and unburied in the wayes, being food to the beasts and birds of prey: a sad spectacle to passengers, which so corrupted the ayre, that it infected and killed many who were healthy. Yet the Kings heart was so hardned, by the wicked councell he followed, against the Mar­shall, that the Bishops admonishing him to make peace with him, WHO FOVGHT FOR IVSTISE: he answered, that he would never make peace with him, unlesse comming with an halter about his necke and acknowledging himselfe to be a Traytor, he would implore his mercy. The Marshall both in England and Ireland; professed that he was no Traytor; that his warre being but defensive, was just; immu­tabiliter affirmant, quod li [...]uit sibi de jure quod suum crat repetere, & posse Regis & Consiliorum suorum, modis omnibus quibus poterat, infirmare.’

Page 966. 967. Daniel, p. 178. William Rishanger in his continuation of Matthew Paris, speaking of the death of Simon Monfort Earle of Leycester, slaine in the Battle of Ev [...]sham, the greatest Pillar of the Barrons warres; useth this expression. ‘ Thus this magnificent Earle Symon, en­ded his labors, who not onely bestowed his estate but his person also, for releiefe of the oppression of the poore; for the asserting of Iustice, and the right of the Realme: he was commendably skilfull in learning, a dayly frequenter of divine Offices, constant in word, severe in countenance, most confiding in the prayers of Religious persons, alwayes very respectfull to Ecclesiasticall persons. He earnestly adheared to Robert Grosthead Bishop of Lincolne, and committed his children to his education. By his advise he handled difficult things, attempted doubtfull things, concluded things be­gun, specially such things whereby he thought he might gaine desert. Which Bishop was said to have enjoyned him, as he would obtaine remission of his sinnes, that he should undertake this cause for which he contended even unto death, affirming, that the peace of the Church of England could never be established, but by them materiall sword; and constant­ly averring; THAT ALL WHO DIED FOR IT WERE CROWNED WITH MARTYRDOME. Some say that this Bishop on a time, laying his hand on the head of the Earles eldest sonne, said unto him. O most deare sonne, thou and thy father shall both dye on one day, and with one hand of death; YET FOR JUSTICE AND TRVTH. Fame reports that Symon after his death grew famous by many miracles, which for feare of the King came not in publicke.’ Thus this Historian, thus Robert Grosthead the most devout and learned Bishop of that age, (who most of any opposed the Popes Vsurpations and exactions) determine of the justice and lawfulnesse of the Barons Warres; Walter Bishop of Worcester concurring in the same opinion with Grosthead. The same Page. 970. author Rishanger records; that the Earle of Glocester, a great stickler in these warres against the king, with whom at last he accorded; signified to the King by his Letters Patents under his seale, that he would never beare Armes a­gainst the King his Lord, nor against his Sonne Prince Edward, NISI DEFENDO; but onely in his Defence: which the King and Prince accepting of, clearely proves; that defensive Armes against King or Prince were in that age generally reputed Law­full, by King Prince, Prelates, Nobles, People. I may likewise adde to this what I read in An. 3263. p. 336. Matthew Westminster, that Richard Bishop of Chichester the day before the battle of Lewis against King Henry and his sonne (who were taken prisoners in it by the Barons and 20000. of their Souldiers slaine;) absolved all that went to fight [Page 32] against the King their Lord from all their sinnes. Such confidence had he of the good­nesse of the cause and justnesse of the warre.

In one word, the Mat. Par. p. 952. 953. Speed, p 636. Dan. p. 178. oath of association prescribed by the Barons to the King of Ro­mans, brother to King Henry the third, in the 43. yeare of his Raigne; Heare all men, that I Richard Earle of Cornewall, doe here sweare upon the holy Evangelists, that I shall be faithfull, and diligent to reforme with you the Kingdome of England, hitherto by the councell of wicked persons overmuch disordered: and be an effectuall 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 helpe me God. Which Oath all the Barrons and their associates tooke, (by vertue whereof they tooke up armes against the Kings ill Councellors, and himselfe when he joined with them,) sufficiently demonstrates their publicke opinions and judgements of the lawfulnesse, the justnesse of their warres; and of all other necessarie defensive armes, taken up by the Kingdomes generall assent for preservation of its Lawes, Liber­ties, and suppression of those Rebels, and ill Councellors who fight against, or labour to subvert them by their policies.

W [...]lsing. Hist. Angl. p. 70 to 75. Ypo­digma Neustr. An. 1309. 1310 Dan. Holi [...]sh. Graf. Speed, Fab Stow and o­thers in his life: Fox Acts and Monu­ments, Edw. ult vol. 1. p. 480. 481. In the third yeare 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 favour 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 [...]ly rise up against him as a perjured person. Vpon which the King much terrified suffers Piers to abjure the Realme; who returning againe soone after to the Court at Yorke; where the king entertained him; the Lords spirituall and temporall, to preserve he liberties of the Church and Realme, sent an honourable message to the King, to deliver Piers into their hands, or banish him, for the preservation of the peace, Treasure and weale of the Kingdome; this wilfull King de­nies their just request; whereupon the Lords thus contemned and deluded, raised an army, and march with all speede 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 him­selfe to the Barrons, who at Warwicke Castle, (without any legall triall by meere mar­tiall Law) beheaded him, as a subvertor of the Lawes, and an OPEN TRAITOR TO THE KINGDOME. For which facts this King afterwards reprehending and accusing the Lords in Parliament, in the 7 ^th yeare of his Raigne; 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, Lords and Commons assembled in that Parliament, (Printed in the F. 43. 44. 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 judgement, for causing Pierce to returne from Exile, or harboring, councelling or ayding hi [...]ere after his returne: The second on the Barons part, in these words: It is provided by the King, and by the Archbishops, Bi­shops, Abbots, Priors, Earles, Bar [...]s and Commons, of the Realme, assembled according [Page 33] 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 judgement 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 firme and stable in all its points, and that every of them should be held, and kept in perpetuitie; to which end he commands them to cause this act to be there inrolled, and firmely kept for ever. A pregnant evidence that the Barons taking up Armes then against this Traytor and enemie of the Realme, 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 Armes is not mentioned in this Act of oblivion, seeing they all held it just, but their putting Piers to death, without legall triall; which in strict­nesse of Law, could not be justified. Now whether this be not the Parliaments and kingdomes present case in point of Law (who tooke up armes principally at first, for defence of their owne Priviledges 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 offence against the King; but a just, lawfull act, for the kings, the kingdomes honour and safety.

Not long after this, the two Walsirg. Ho­linsh. Fab. Graf. Stow, Speed, Daniel in his life. Spensers getting into the kings favour, and seducing, miscouncelling him as much as Gaveston did; the Lords and Barrons hereupon in the 14 ^th and 15 ^th yeares of his raigne, confederated together, to live and dye 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 Earle of Lancaster Generall; and meeting at Sherborne, they plunder and destroy the Spensers Castles, Mannors. Houses, Friends, Servants, and marching to Saint Albanes with Ensignes displayed, sent Messengers to the King then at London, admonishing him not onely to rid his Court but Kingdome, of the TRAITORS TO THE REALME, the Spensers (condemned by the Commons in many Articles) to preserve the peace of the Realme; and to grant them and all their followers Lette [...]s Pattents of indemnity, for what they had formerly done. Which the King at first denied but afterwards this Ar­mie marching up to London, where they were received by the City, he yeelded to it, and in the 15 ^th yeare of his Raigne by a speciall Act of Parliament the said Spensers were disinherited and banished the Realme (formis-councelling the king, oppressing the people by injustice, a vising him to levie warre upon his Subjects, making evill Iudges and other Officers to the hurt of the King and Kingdome, [...]ng [...]ossing the Kings eare, and usurping his Royall 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 sonne; which Act runnes thus? ‘Whereas of late many great men of the Realme sur­mised to Sir Hugh le Despenser the sonne and Father, many misdemeanors by them committed against the estate of our Lord the King and of his Crowne, and to the [Page 34] disinheritance of the great men and destruction of the people, and pursued those misdemeanors and attainder of them by force, because they could not be attainted by processe of Law, because that the said Sir Hughes had accroached to them the royall power in divers manner: the said Grandees having mutually bound themselves by oath in writing, without the advise of our Lord the King; and after in pursuing the said Hugh and Hugh, and their alies and adherents, the said great men and others, ri­ding with banners displaied, having in them the Armes of the king and their owne; did take and occupie the Chattels, Villages, Mannors; Lands, Tenements, Goods, and likewise take and imprison some of the Kings leige people and others, tooke some and slew others, and did many other things, in destroying the said Hugh and Hugh, and their alies, and others in England, Wales, and in the Marches, whereof some things may be said Trespasses, and others felonies: and the said Hugh and Hugh, in the Par­liament of our Lord the King, sommoned at Westminster three weekes after the Nati­vitie of Saint John Baptist the 15. yeare of his Raigne, for the said misdemeanors were fore judged and banished the Realme, by a vote of the Peeres of the Land; and the foresaid great men in the said Parliament, shewed to our Lord the King, that the things done in the pursuite of the said Hugh and Hugh, by reason of such causes of ne­cessity, cannot be legally redressed or punished without causing great trouble, or per­chance warre in the land, which shall be worse; and prayed our Lord, that of all alli­ances, trespasses and felonies they might be for ever acquitted, for the preservation of peace, the avoyding of warre, and asswaging of angers and rancors, and to make unitie in the land; and that our Lord the King may more intirely have the hearts and Wills of the great men and of his people, to maintaine and defend his Lands, and to make warre upon and grieve his enemies. It is accorded and agreed in the said Parlia­ment by our Lord the King, and by the Prelates, Earles, Barrons, and Commons of the Realme there assembled by command of our Lord the King, that none of what e­state or condition soever he be for alliance, at what time soever made, by deed, oath, wri­ting, or in other manner, nor for the taking, occupying, or detainer of Chattels, towns, Mannors, Lands, Tenements, and good taken, imprisoning or ransoming the Kings leige People, or of other homicides, robberies, felonies, or other things which may be noted as trespasses or fellonies committed against the peace of the king by the said great men, their allies, or adherents in the pursuite aforesaid, since the first day of March last past, till the thursday next after the feast of the assumption of our Ladie, to wit, the 19. day of August next ensuing, be appealed, nor challenged, taken nor im­prisoned, nor grieved, nor drawne into judgement by the King, nor any other at the suite of any other which shall be in the Kings Court or in any place else; but that all such trespasses and Felonies shall be discharged by this accord and assent: saving alwaies to all men, but to the said Hugh and Hugh, action and reason to have and recover their Chattels, Farmes, mannors, Lands, tenements, wards and marriages according to the Lawes and customes used in the Realme, without punishment against the king, or damages recovered against the party for the time aforesaid. For which end they pre­scribed likewise a Charter of Pardon annexed to this Act according to the purport of it which every one that would might sue out, which Charter you may read in old Magna Charta.’

From which Act of Parliament I shall observe these three things. First, that this their taking up Armes to apprehend the Spens [...]rs as enemies to the King and kingdom, [Page 35] and marching with banners displayd, was not then reputed high Treason or Rebellion against the King, though it were by way of offence, not of defence, 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 beene high Treason, this Act and Charters on it extending onely to Fellonie and Trespasses not to Treasons and Rebellions, would Dy [...]. 50. pl. 4 [...]. 6 [...]. 12. Stam­ford. f. 2. not have pardoned these transcendent Capitall crimes. Secondly, that the unlawfull outrages, robberies, and murders committed by the souldiers 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 warre, made without common assent of Parliament, and many murthers, 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 suppresse and ba­nish these ill Councellors, enemies, Traytors to King and Kingdome, the King and Parliament thought it such a publicke 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 cleare demonstration, that they would have resolved our present defensive warre, by Authoritie of both Houses, accompanied with no such outrages as these; for the apprehension of such as have beene voted Traytors and Delinquents by Parliament, and stand out in contempt against its ju­stice, for the defence of the Priviledges and Members of Parliament, the Liberties and properties of the subject, the fundamentall lawes of the Realme, the Protestant Re­ligion now indangered by Papists up in Armes in England and Ireland to extirpate it, and the removing ill Counsellors from his Majestie; to be no high Treason, Rebellion or offence at all against the king, but a just and lawful Act, the very miscarriages wher­of in the generall (except in such disorderly Souldiers for whom martiall Law hath provided due punishments) deserve a publike pardon both from King and Kingdome. And to put this out of Question; as no fancie of mine owne, we have an expresse Act of Parliament, resolving the taking up of Armes by the Queene, Prince, (both but subjects and capable of High Treason in such a case as well as others) the Nobles and people of the Realme against these two Spensers and other ill Counsellors about this king in the last yeare of his raigne, (though the King himself were in their Company, and taken prisoner by the Forces raised against them,) for the necessary preservation, reliefe, and safety of the Queene, Prince, Nobles, Kingdome, to be no high Treason nor offence at all: namely, the statute of 1 E. 3. c. 1. 2. 3, which I shall recite at large. ‘Whereas Hugh Spenser the Father, and Hugh Spenser the Sonne, late at the suite of Tho­mas then Earle of Lancaster and Leycester, and Steward of England, by the common assent and vote of the Peers and Commons of the Realme, and by the assent of King Edward Father to our Soveraigne Lord the King, that now is, AS TRAITORS & ENEMIES OF THE KING, & OF THE REALME, were Exiled, disinhe­rited and banished out of the Realme for ever. And afterward the same Hugh by e­vill Councell, which the king had about him, without the assent of the Peeres and Commons of the Realme, came againe into the Realme: and they with other pro­cured the said king to pursue the said Earle of Lancaster, and other great men and people of the Realme, in which pursuite the said Earle of Lancaster and other great men and people of the Realme, were willingly dead and disinherited, and some [Page 36] outlawed, banished, and disinherited; and some disinherited and imprisoned, and some ransommed and disherited: and after such mischiefe the said Hugh and Hugh Master Robert Bald [...]cke and Edm [...]nd Earle of Arundell usurped to them the Royall power, so that the king nothing did, nor would doe, but as the said Hugh and Hugh, Rob [...]rt and Edmond Earle of Arundell did councell him, were it never so great wrong: during which usurpation, by duresse and force against the Will of the Commons, they purchased Lands, as well by fines levied in the Court of the said Edward, as otherwise: and whereas after the death of the said Earle of Lancaster, and other great men, our Soveraigne Lord the King that now is, and Dame Isabel Queene of England, his Mother, by the Kings will and Common Councell of the Realme, went over to France, to treate of peace betweene the two Realmes of England and France, upon certaine debates then moved. The said Hugh and Hugh, Robert and Edmond Earle of Arundell continuing in their mischiefe, encouraged the king against our Soveraigne Lord the king that now is, his sonne, and the said Queene his wife, and by royall po­wer which they had to them encroached, as afore is said, procured so much grievance by the assent of the said King Edward, to our Soveraigne Lord the King that now is, and the Queene his mother, being in so great jeopardy of themselves in a strange Country, and seeing the Destruction, Dammage, Oppressions, and Distractions which were notoriously done in the Realme of England, upon holy Church, Prelates, Earles Ba­rons, and other great men, and the Commonalty by the said Hugh and Hugh, Robert and Edmond Earle of Arundell by the encroaching of the said royall power to them, to take as good Councell therein as they might. And seeing they might not remedie the same unlesse they came into England, with an Army of men of warre; and by the Grace of God with such puissance, and with the helpe of great men and Commons of the Realme, they have vanquished and destroyed the sayd Hugh and Hugh, Robert and Edmond: Wherefore our Soveraigne Lord King Edward that now is, at his Parlia­ment holden at Westmiuster, at the time of his Coronation, the morrow after Candle­mas, in the first yeare of his reigne, upon certaine Petitions and requests made unto him in the said Parliament upon such Articles above rehearsed, by the common coun­cell of the Prelates, Earles, Barons, and other great men, and by the Commonalty of the Realme, there being by his Commandment, hath provided, ordained and stabli­shed in forme following. First, that no great man, or other of what estate, dignity, or condition he be, that came with the said king that now is, and with the Queene his mother into the Realme of England, and none other dwelling in England, who came with the said king that now is, Nota. and with the Queene, In ayde of them to pursue their said enemies, in which pursuite the King his Father was taken and put in ward, and yet remaineth in ward, shall not be molested impeached or grieved in person or goods, in the kings Court, or other Court, for the pursuite of the said king, taking and with holding of his body, nor pursuite of any other, nor taking of their persons, goods, nor death of any man, or any other things perpetrate or committed in the said pursuite, from the day the said king and Queene did arme, till the day of the Coronation of the same king: and it is not the kings minde, that such offenders that committed any trespasse or other offence out of the pursuites should goe quit, or have advantage of this sta­tute, but they shall be at their answere for the same at the Law. Item, that the repeale of the said Exile which was made by Dures and force be ad [...]ulled for evermore, and the said Exile made by award of the Peeres and Commons, by the kings assent as be­fore [Page 37] is said, shall stand in his strength in all points, after the tenure of every particular therein contained. Item, that the Executors of the Testament of all those that were of the same quarrell dead, shall have actions and recover the Goods and Chattels of them, being of the said quarrell, whose executors they be; as they of the same quarrell should, &c.’

Certainely here was an higher pursuite and levying warre against the King and his evill Councellors, then any yet attempted by this Parliament; and a warre rather of­fensive, then defensive, in which the king himself was both taken and detained Priso [...]r, and then forced to resigne his Crowne to his sonne; yet this is here justified, as a ne­cessary, just and lawfull warre by an Act of Parliament, never yet repealed; and all that bare Armes against the king and his ill Councellors, yea they who pursued, appre­hended, and imprisoned the king himselfe, 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. yeare of his Raigne, ch. 2. Which declares it high Treason, to levie warre against the King in his Realme, did never intend it of a necessary defensive warre against a seduced King and his evill Councellors (especially by the Votes of both Houses of Parliament, who doubtlesse would never passe any Act to make themselves, or their Posteritie in succeeding Parliaments, Traytors, for taking up meere necessary defensive Armes for their owne, and the Kingdomes pre­servation) for that had beene diametra [...]ly contrary to this statute, made in the very first yeare and Parliament of this King; and would have l [...]yd an aspertion of High Treason upon the king himself, the Queene his Mother, their own Fathers, and many of them­selves; who thus tooke up Armes and made a defensive kinde of warre upon King [...]d­ward the 2 ^d, taking him prisoner: but onely to Rebellious insurrections, of private persons, without any publick authority of Parliament, or the whole Kingdome in gene­rall; and of meere offensive warres against the King without any just occasion, hostili­tie or violence on the Kings part, necessitating them to take up defensive Armes: which I humbly submit to the judgement of those grand Rabbies and Sages of the Law, and the Honorable Houses of Parliament, who are best able to resolve, and are the onely Iudges to determine this point in controversie, by the expresse letter and pro­vision of 25. Ed. 3. ch. 2. of Treasons.

In the Walsing Hist. A [...]gl p. 213. See Ho­linsh. Speed. Trussell in Ri [...]. [...] and Cambdens Bri­ [...]d, of the British Is­lands, p. 2 [...]4. first yeare of king Richard the 2 ^d. John Mercer a Scot, with a Navie of Spa­nish, Scottish & French ships much infested the Marchants and Coasts of England ta­king many prises without any care taken by the king, Lords, or Councell to resist them. Whereupon Iohn Philpot a rich Merchant of London, diligently considering the defect, that I say not treachery of the Duke of I ancaster, and other Lords who ought to defend the Realme, and grieving to see the oppressions of the people, did at his proper charge hire a thousand souldiers and set out a fleete, to take the said Mercers ships, with the goods he had gotten by Pyracie, and defend the Realme of England from such incur­sions: who in a short time tooke M [...]rcer prisoner, with 15. Spanish ships, and all the Booties he had gained from the English: whereat all the people rejoyced exceedingly, commending and extolling Philpot for the great love he shewed to his Countrey, and casting out some reproachfull words against the Nobles and Kings councell who had the rule of the kingdome and neglected its defence: Whereupon the Nobility, Earles and Barons of the Realme, conscious of this their negligence, and envying Philpo [...] [Page 38] for this his Noble praise-worthy action, began not onely secretly to lay snares for him, but openly to reproach him, saying: That it was not lawfull for him to doe such things without the advise or councell of the King and Kingdome: quasi non licuisset benefacere Regi VELREGNO sine consilio Comitum & Baronum: (Writes Walsingham) as if it were not lawfull to doe good to the King or Kingdome, without the advise of the Earles and Barrons, or Lords of the Privie Councell. To whom objecting these things, and especially to Hugh Earle of Stafford, who was the chiefe Prolocutor and spake most against it, Iohn Philpot gave this answere: ‘Know for certaine, that I have destinated my money, ships, and men to sea to this end, not that I might deprive you of the good name and honour of your Militia, or warlike actions, and engrosse it to my selfe, but pittying the misery of my Nation and Country, which now by your sloathfulnesse, of a most Noble kingdome, and Lady of Nations, is devolved into so great misery, that it lyeth open to the pillage of every one of the vilest Nations, seeing there is none of you, who will put your hand to its defence. I have exposed me and mine therefore for the Salvation of my proper Nation, and frteing of my Country. To which the Earle and others had not a word to reply.’ 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 lawfull for the Commons and every parti­cular subject without any Commission from the king or his Councell, in times of imi­nent danger, to take up Armes and raise Forces by Sea or Land to defend the king and his Native Country against invading enemies; as Philpot did, without offence or crime. Then much more may the Houses of Parliament, the representative body of the whole kingdome, and all private Subjects by their Command, take up necessary defensive Armes against the kings Popish and Malignant Forces to preserve the king, Kingdome, Parliament, People from spoyle, and ruine.

In Walsia. hist. Angl p. 341. the 8. yeare of King Richard the 2 ^d. there arose a great difference betweene the Duke of Lancaster, & the king & his young complices, who conspired the Dukes death; agreeing sodainely to arrest and arraigne him before Robert Trisilian Chiefe Iustice, who boldly promised to passe sentence against him, according to the quality of the crimes objected to him. Vpon this the Duke having private intelligence of their trea­chery, to provide for his owne safety, wisely withdrew himselfe, and posted to his Castle at Ponfract, storing it with Armes and Victualls. Hereupon not onely a private but publicke discord was like to ensue; but by the great mediation and paines of Ione the kings mother, an accord and peace was made betweene them: and this defence of the Duke by fortifying his Castle with Armes against the King and his ill instruments for his owne just preservation, held no crime. If such a defence then were held just and lawfull in one particular Subject and Peere of the land onely, much more must it be so in both Houses of Parliament, and the Kingdome, in case the Kings Forces invade them.

In the Walsing. Hist. Ang. p. 358, to 367. Polyc. Fab. Speed, Gra [...]t. Hoti [...]. Howes, Trassel. in 10. & 11 R. 2. 11 R 2 [...]. 1. [...]07. 10 ^th yeare of King Richard the second this unconstant king being instigated by Michael de la Pole, Robert V [...]ere Duke of Ireland, Alexander Nevill ARchbishop of Yorke. Robert Trysilian. and other ill Councellors and Traytors to the kingdome, endea­voured to seize upon the Duke of Glocester, the Earles of Arundell, Warwicke, Derby, Notingham, and others who were faithfull to the kingdome, and to put them to death, having caused them first to be indighted of High Treason at Nottingham Castle, and hired many Souldiers to surprise them: Hereupon these Lords for their owne just [Page 39] defence, raised Forces and met at Harynggye Parke with a numerous Army: whereat the King being much perplexed, advised what was best for him to do. The Archbishop of Yorke and others of his ill Councell, advised him to gee forth and give them battle; but his wisest councellors disswaded him, affirming, that the King should gaine no benefit if hee vanquished them and should sustaine great dishonour and losse if he were conquered by them. In the meane time Hugh Linne an old Souldier, who had lost his senses, and was repu­ted a foole, comming in to the Councell, the King demanded of him in jest, what hee should doe against the Nobles met together in the said Parke? who answered; Let us goe forth and assault them, and slay every mothers sonne of them, and by the eyes of God, this being finished, THOU HAST SLAINE ALL THE FAITHFVLL FRIENDS THOU HAST IN THE KINGDOME. Which answere, though uttered foolishly; yet wise men did most of all consider. At last is was resolved by the mediators of Peace, that the Lords should meete the King at Westminster, and there receive an answere to the things for which they tooke Armes; thither they came strongly Armed with a great guard, for feare of ambuscadoes to intrap them: where the Chauncellour in the Kings name spake thus to them. My Lords, our Lord the King hearing that you were lately assembled at Harenggye Parke in an unusuall 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 beene spilt, which the King doth most of all abhorre, and therefore assuming to himselfe patience and mildnesse, he hath made choyce to convent you peceably, and to tell him the reason why yoy have ass [...]m­bled so many men. To which the Lords 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 Traytors they appealed were the foresaid ill Councellors, and Nicholas Brambre the false London Knight: and to prove this appeale of them true, casting down their gloves they said they would prosecute it by Duell: 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 comming, shall receive satisfaction in all things according to Law. The Lords for their owne safety kept together till the Parliament, and in the meane timed feated the Forces of the Duke of Ireland, raised privately by the Kings Command to surprise them. The Parliament comming on the 11. yeare of Richard the second: these ill councellors were therein, by speciall Acts attainted, condemned of High Treason, and some of them executed; and these defensive Armes of the Lords, for their owne and the Kingdomes safety, adjudged and declared to be no Treason: but a thing done to the honour of God and Salvation of the King and his Realme: witnesse the expresse words of the Printed Act of 11 R. 2. c. 1. which I shall transcribe. Our Soveraigne Lord the King amongst other Petitions and requests to him made by the Commons of his said Realme in the said Parliament, hath recei­ved one Petition in the forme following. The Commons prayed, that whereas the last Parliament for cause of the great and horrible mischiefes and perills which ano­ther time were fallen BY EVILL GOVERNANCE WHICH WAS ABOVT THE KINGS PERSON, by all his time before by Alexander late Archbishop of Yorke, Robert de Veere late Duke of Ireland, Michael de la Pole late Earle of Suffolk, [Page 40] ‘ Rober: Trisilian late Iustice, and Nicholas Brambre Knight, with other their adherents, and others, Whereby the King and all his Realme, were very nigh [...] to have beene wholly undone and destroyed; and for this cause, and to eschew such perils and mischiefes for the time to come, a certaine statute was made in the same Parliament, with a Commis­sion to diverse Lords, for the weale, honour and safeguard of the King, his regalty and of all the Realme, the tenour of which Commission hereafter followeth: Richard, &c. as in the Act. And thereupon the said Alexander, Robert, Mighill, Robert, and Ni­cholas and their said adherents, seeing that their said evill governance should be percei­ved, and they by the same cause more likely to be punished by good justice to be done, and also their evill deedes and purposes before used to be disturbed by the sayd Lords assigned by commission as afore; made, conspired, & purposed divers horrible Treasons, and evils against the King, and the said Lords so assigned, and against all the other Lords and Commons, which were assenting to the making of the said Ordinance and Com­mission, in destruction of the king, his Regalty, and all his Realme. Whereupon Thomas Duke of Glocester the kings Vncle, Richard Earle of Arundle, and Thomas Earle of Warwicke, perceiving the evill purpose of the sayd Traytors, did assemble themselves in forcible manner for the safety of their persons to shew and declare the said Treasons and evill purposes, and thereof to set remedie; as God would, and came to the Kings presence, affirming against the said 5. Traytors appealed of High Treason, by them done to the King, and to his Realme: upon which appeale the king our Soveraigne Lord, adjourned the said parties till this present Parliament, and did take them into his safe protection, as in the record made upon the same appeale fully appeareth. And afterwards in great Rebellion, and against the said protection, the said Traytors, with their said adherents and others aforesaid, continuing their evill purpose, some of them assembled a great power (by letters and Commission from the King himselfe, as Walsingham and others write) to have destroyed the said Duke and Earles appellants, and other the kings lawfull leige people, and to accomplish their Treasons and evill purposes aforesaid. Whereupon the said Duke of Glocester, Henry Earle of Darby, the sayd Earles of Arundell and Warwicke, and Thomas Earle Mar­shall, seeing the open Destruction of the King and all his Realme, if the said evill pur­posed Traitors and their adherents, were not disturbed, which might not otherwise have beene done, but with strong hand; for the weale and safeguard of the King our Soveraigne Lord, and of all his Realme, did assemble them forcibly, and rove and pur­sued till they had disturbed the said power gathered by the said Traytors, and their ad­herents aforesaid, which five Traytors be attainted this present Parliament of the Treasons and evills aforesaid, at the suite and appeale of the said Duke of Glocester, Earles of Darby, Arundle, Warwicke, and Marshall. That it would please our redoub­led Soveraigne Lord the King to accept, approve, and affirme, in this present Parlia­ment, all that was done in the last as afore, and as much as hath beene done since the last Parliament by force of the statute, Ordinance, or Commission aforesaid; and also All that the said Duke of Glocester Earles of Arundell and W [...]rwicke did; and that the same Duke and Earles, and the said Earles of Derby, and Marshall or any of them did, Or any other of their company or of their ayde, or of their adherents, or of any of them, or touching the Assemblies, Ridings, Appeales, and Pursuites aforesaid, * As a thing made to the Honour of God, Salvation of the King, maintenance of his Crowne, and also of the Salvation of all his Realme (therefore doubtlesse no Treason [Page 41] Rebellion, nor any offence in point of Law:) and also to Ordaine and Stablish, that the said Duke of Glocester, Earles of Darby, Arundell, Warwicke and Marshall, nor none of them, nor none of such as have beene of their returne, or company, force, ayde or councell, or any of them in the things aforesaid, nor none other person for any thing aforesaid shall be impeached, molested, or grieved at the suite of the king, nor of the party, nor in other manner, because of any assembly, riding, beating, levying of Penons, or of Banners, discomfiture, death of a man, imprisonment of any person, taking, leading away, or detinue of any horses or of any other beasts, taking or carriage of goods, harnesse, armour, cattle, and other [...]ovable goods, breaking of houses, or of other possessions or goods, assault, battery, robberies, thefts, comming or tarrying with force and armes, or armed in the Kings presence at the Parliament, or Councell, or else where. Raysing of people, or exciting the people to rise forcibly against the peace by letters, commissions, or any other deeds, or of any other thing that may be furni [...]hed by them, or any of them, or ought or purposed to have beene done from the beginning of the world, touching any of the said matters before the end of this present Parliament by any imagination, interpretation, or other colour, but shall bee quit and discharged for ever: except that the King be answered of all the goods, and cattels that were to them which be attainted in this present Parliament, or to any of them, and which goods and things were taken by any person the first day of January last past, or after hitherto. We considering the matter of the said Petition to be true, and the request of the said Commons in this party Nota. to be to the honour of God, and the profit of us and our Realme, of the assent of the Prelates, Dukes, Earles, Barrons and all others of this present Parliament, doe garnt the requests of the said Commons in all points, after the forme of the said Petition. And moreover of the assent aforesayd, we will and grant for the greater quietnesse of our said Realme, though that the said Duke or Earles appellants, or any other of their company, retinue, force, ayde, coun­cell or adherents, or any of them have taken, led away, or withholden any of our Iusticers, or any other of our ministers, in disturbance of execution of the Law of our Realme of England, or in other manner, or that they have taken any manner of per­son as Traitors to Us or to our Realme, or other person, and the same have volunta­rily suffered to goe at large, or escape beyond the sea from the 14 ^th day of Novemb. last past, till the end of this present Parliament; that they nor any of them be for this cause impeached, molested, nor grieved any manner of way at the suite of us, our heires, nor none other party, but thereof they shall be quit, and discharged for ever; nor that they nor any of them be in any wise molested, grieved, nor impeached at the suite of us, our heires, or other party for any thing done at any time for to attaine to their purpose against the said appealers or any of them, or against any other person for this cause, nor for any other thing or deed to affirme the same purposes, till the end of this present Parliament, but thereof shall be acquitted.’

This Act with others made the same Parliament continued inviolable without dispute for 10 yeers space, during w ^ch there were 8. more Parliaments held w ^ch approved it: but in 21 R. 2. the King having See Wal­singh, Hol [...]sh. Graft. Speed, Sto [...], Tussell, in 21. R 2 & 21 R c. 16: 17 [...]8. 19 But especially ca. 20 will ma­nifest the un­justnesse of this unlawful packed con­venticle if I may so call it. violently seised upon the Duke of Glocester & the Earles of Warwicke and Arundell, and packed a Parliament to his minde, by not summoning any Lords 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 Lords to be illegally attainted of Treason upon fained pretences, out of this old grudge, and the [Page 42] 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, voyded, undone and anulled for ever, with all the Acts, circumstances, and dependants thereof: and this Parliament of 11. R. 2. Enacted to be firmely holden and kept after the purport and effect of the same; as a thing made for the great Honour and common profit of the Realme, and ch. 5. It is ordained and assented, that the Lords and other which were ‘forejudged in the Parliament holden the said 21. yeare, or by Authority of the same, which now be in life, and the heires of the Lords and others that be dead, shall be wholly restitute and restored to their names, all manner of inheritaments and posses­sions, reversions, fees, reversions, offices, liberties, and franchises as intirely as the said Lords and others which be in life, or the Lords and other which be dead, ancestors of the heires, or the feoffees of the said Lords or other aforesaid, or other feoffees to their use, were at the time of the judgement given against them, the said 21 yeare, by entrie, without other suite thereof to be made, or livery to be had of the same. And all the goods and chattels which were the said Lords, or the other persons aforesaid, so forejudged, whereof the king is not answered, and be in the hands of the Sheriffes, Escheators, or other Officers, Ministers, or any other and concealed by them, the king wills and granteth, that the same Lords and other which now be in life, and the Exe­cutors, and administrators of them that be dead; shall have thereof delivery and resti­tution; and that the Sheriffes, Escheators, Officers and Ministers so occupying the said goods and chattels by such concealment, bee punished for the same con­cealement.’

So that by the expresse resolution of these two severall Parliaments, these Lords and Commons taking up defensive Armes and making war against those wicked Coun­cellours of this King which sought their ruine, and endeavoured the destruction of the Realme (though they had the kings presence and commissions to countenance all their actions and proceedings of this nature, and the Lords wanted the Ordinances of both houses to authorize this their arming, and war) was solemnely declared and adjudg­ed, to be no Treason nor Rebellion at all, nor levying of warre against the king, with­in the statute of 25. E. 3. but contrarywise; a thing done to the honour of God, the Sal­vation of the King, (for if the Kingdome perish or miscarry, the king as king must needs perish with it) the maintenance of his Crowne, (supported onely by the main­tenance of the kingdomes welfare) and the Salvation and common profit of all the Realm: and this being one of the first solemne judgements (if not the very first) given in Par­liament after the making of the statute of 25 E. 3. which hath relation to its clause of levying war, must certainely be the best exposition of that Law: which the Parliament onely ought to interpret, as is evident by the statute of 21. R. 2. c. 3. (It is ordained and stablished, that every man which, &c. or he that raiseth the people and riseth against the King to make warre within his Realme; and of that be duly attainted and judged in the Parliament shall be judged as a Traytor of High Treason against the Crowne,) and other forecited Acts: and if this were no Treason, nor Rebellion, nor Trespasse in the Barons against the king or kingdome; but a warre for the honour of God, the sal­vation of the king, the maintenance of his Crowne, the safety and common profit of all the Realme; much more must our Parliaments present defensive warre against his Majesties ill Councellors, Papists, Malignants, Delinquents, and men of desperate fortunes, risen [Page 43] up in Armes against the Parliament, Lawes, Religion, Liberties, the whole Kingdomes peace and welfare, be so too; being backed with the very same, and farre better, greater authority, and more publike reasons then their warre was, in which the safety of Religion was no great ingredient, nor the preservation of a Parliament from a forced dissolution, though established and perpetuated by a publike Law.

King Henry the 4 ^th, taking up Armes against King Richard, and causing him to be Articled against, and judicially deposed in and by Parliament for his Male-admini­stration; It was Enacted by the Statute of 1. Hen 4. cap. 2. That no Lord Spirituall nor Temporall, nor other, of what estate or condition that he be, which came with King Henry into the Realme of England, nor none other persons whatsoever they be, then dwelling with­in the same Realme, and which came to this King in aide of him, to pursue them which were against the Kings good intent, and the COMMON PROFIT OF THE REALME, in which pursuit Richard late King of England, the second after the Conquest, was pursued taken and put in Ward, and yet remaineth in Ward, be impeached, grieved, nor vexed in person, nor in goods, in the Kings Court, nor in none other Court, for the pursuites of the said King, taking and with-holding of his body, nor for the pursuits of any other, taking of persons and cattells, or of the death of a man, or any other thing done in the said pursuite, from the day of the said King that now is arived, till the day of the Coronation of Our said Soveraigne Lord Henry. And the intent of the King is not, that offendors which committed Trespasses, or other offences out of the said pursuits, without speciall warrant, should be ayded, nor have any advantage of this Statute, but that they be thereof answerable at the Law. If those then who in this offensive Warre assisted Henry the 4 ^th. to apprehend, and depose this persidious, oppressing tyrannicall king, seduced by evill Counsellors and his owne innate dis-affection to his naturall people, deserved such an immu­nity of persons and goods, from all kinds of penalties, because though it tended to this ill kings deposition, yet in their intentions it was really for the common profit of the Realme, as this Act defines it. No doubt this present defensive Warre a­lone against Papists, Delinquents, and evill Counsellors, (who have miserably wasted, spoiled, sacked many places of the Realme, and fired others in a most barbarous maner, See Alba­ricus Gentiles de Jure Be [...]li lib. 2 cap. 18. 20. 21. 22. 23 contrary to the Law of Armes and Nations, and labour to subvert Religi­on, Laws, Liberties, Parliaments, and make the Realm a common Prey) without any ill intention against his Majesties Person, or lawfull Royall Authority, deserves a grea­ter immunity; and can in no reasonable mans judgement, be interpreted any Trea­son, or Rebellion against the king, or his Crowne, in Law or Conscience.

In Grofton, p. 625. 626 627 628. Hall. 32. & 33. H 6. f. 167. 168. Holinshead, Stow, Speed, Fabian. the 33. yeare of king Henry the 6 ^th. (a weake Prince wholly guided by the Queene and Duke of Somerset, who ruled all things at their wills, under whose Government, the greatest part of France was lost;) all things went to ruine both abroad and at home; and the Queene (much against the Lords and Peoples mindes) preferring the Duke of Sommerset to the Captain ship of Calice, the Commons and Nobility were greatly offended thereat, saying, That he had lost Normandy, and so would he do [...] Calice. Hereupon the Duke of Yorke, the Earles of Warwicke and Salis­bury, with other their adherents, raised an Army in the Marches of Wales, and Mar­ched with it towards London, to suppresse the Duke of Sommerset with his Faction, and reforme the Governement. The king being credibly informed hereof, assembled his Host, and marching towards the Duke of Yorke and his Forces, was encountred [Page 44] by them at Saint Albanes, notwithstanding the kings Proclamation to keepe the Peace; where in a set Battell, the Duke of Somerset, with divers Earles, and 800. others were slaine on the kings part, by the Duke of Yorke, and his companions, and the king [...] a manner defeate. The Duke after this Victory obtained, remembring that he had oftentimes declared and published abroad; The onely cause of this War to be, THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE PUBLIKE WEALE, and TO SET THE REALME IN A MORE COMMO­DIOVS STATE and BETTER CONDITION; Vsing all lenity, mercy, and bounteousnesse, would not once touch or apprehend the body of King Henry, whom he might have slaine, and utterly destroyed, considering that hee had him in his Ward, and Governance; but with great honour and due reverence, con­veyed him to London; and so to Westminster: where a Parliament being summo­ned and assembled soone after; It was therein Enacted, That no person should either judge or report any point of untruth of the Duke of Yorke, the Earles of Salisbury and Warwicke, For comming in Warlike manner against the King at Saint Al­banes. Considering that their attempt and enterprise, Was onely to see the Kings Person in Safeguard and Sure-keeping, and to put and Alien from Him the pub­like Oppressors of the Common wealth; by whose misgovernance, his life might be in hazard, and his Authority hang on a very small Thred. After this, the Hall, Grift [...] Fabian, Cax­ton, Holinshed Stow, Speed, Anno 37. 38. & 39. R 6. Duke, and these Earles raised another Army, for like purpose, and their owne defence in the 37 and 38 yeares of H. 6. for which they were afterwards, by a packed Parliament at Coventree, by their Enemies procurement, Attainted of high Treason, and their Lands and Goods confiscated. But in the Parliament of 39. H. 6. cap. 1. The said attainder, Parliament, with all Acts and Statutes therein made, were wholly Rever­sed Repealed, annulled; as being made [...]y the excitation and procurement of seditious ill disposed Persons for the accomplishment of their owne Rancor and Covetousnesse, that they might injoy the Lands, Offices. Possessions, and Goods of the lawfull [...]ords and liege People of the King; and that they might finally destroy the laid lawfull Lords, and Liege People, and their Issues and Heires for ever (as now the Kings ill Counsellors, and hungry Cavalleers seek to destroy the Kings faithfull Liege Lords and People, that they may gaine their Lands and Estates; witnesse the late intercepted Le [...]ter of Sir Iohn Brooks, giving advise to thus purpose to his Majestie:) and this Assembl [...] was de­clared; to be no lawful Parliament, but a devillish Counsell, which desired more the destru­ction then advancement of the Publike weale; and the Duke, Earles, with their assi­stants were restored, and declared to be Faithful and Lawful Lords, and Faithful liege People of the Realme of England, who alwaies 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 Lords and their companions, thus taking up Armes, from any the least guilt of Treason and rebellion against the King, because they did it onely for the advancement of the publike weale, the setting the Realme in a better condition the removing ill Counsellors, and publike oppressors of the Realme from about the King, and to rescue his person out of their hands: then questionlesse by their re­solutions, our present Parliaments taking up defensive armes, upon the selfe-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 rationall Iudge or Lawyer can justly averre the contrary, [Page 45] against so many forecited resolutions in Parliament, even in printed Acts.

The Grafton, p. 847. 848 Hal. 3. R. 3. f. 55. 56. See He­lished, Stew, Speed, & Ba­rons Henry 7. Earle of Richmund, afterward King Henry the seventh, taking up armes a­gainst Richard the third, (a lawfull King, defacto, being crowned by Parliament; but an Vsurper and bloody [...]yrant in Verity;) to recover his Inheritance, and Title to the Crowne, and ease the Kingdome of this unnaturall blood-thirsty Oppressor, before his fight at Boswell Field, used this Oration to his Souldiers, pertinent to our pur­pose. ‘If ever God gave victory to men fighting in a just quarrell; or if he ever aided such as made warre for the wealth and tuition of their owne naturall and nutritive Countrey: or if he ever succoured them which adventured their lives for the reliefe of Innocents, suppression of malefactors, and apparent Offenders; No doubt, my Fellowes and Friends, but he of his bountifull goodnesse will this day send us trium­phant victory, and a lucky revenge over our proud Enemies, and arrogant adversa­ries; for if you remember and consider the very cause of our just quarrel, you shall ap­parently perceive the same to be true godly, and vertuous. In the which I doubt not but God will rather ayde us, (yea, and fight for us) then see us vanquished, and pro­fligate by such as neither feare him, nor his Lawes, nor yet regard Iustice and honesty. Our cause is so just, that no enterprise can be of more vertue, both by the Laws Divine and Civill, &c. If this cause be not just, and this quarrell godly, let God, the giver of victory judge and determine, &c. Let us therefore fight like invincible Gyants, and set on our enemies like untimorous Tygers, and banish all feare like tamping Ly­ons. March forth like strong and robustious Champions, and begin the battaile like hardy Conquerors; the Battell is at hand, and the Victory approacheth, and if wee shamefully recule, or cowardly fly, we and all our sequele be destroyed, and disho­noured for ever. This is the day of gaine, and this is the time of losse; get this dayes victory, and be Conquerours; and lose this dayes battell, and bee villaines. And therefore in the name of God, and Saint George, let every man couragiously ad­vance his standard:’ They did so, slew the Tyrannicall Vsurper, wonne the Field; And in the first Parliament of his Raigne, there was this Act of indemnity passed, ‘That all and singular persons comming with him from beyond the Seas into the Realme of England, taking his party and quarrell, in recovering his just Title and Right to the Realme of England, shall be utterly discharged, quit, and unpunisha­ble for ever, by way of action, or otherwise, of or for any murther, slaying of men, or of taking and disporting of goods, or any other trespasses done by them, or a­ny of them, to any person or persons of this his Realme against his most Royall Person, his Banner displayed in the said field, and in the day of the said field, &c.’

Which battell 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 Vsurper; yet because the killing of men, and seising their goods in the time of Warre, is against the very fun­damentall Lawes of the Realme, 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 Armes no such offences) but onely 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 lawfulnesse of necessary Defen­sive [Page 46] sive Warres of Subjects against their oppressing Kings and Princes, appeares by those aides and succours which our Kings in former ages have sent to the French, Flem­mings, Almaines, and others, when their Kings and Princes have injuriously made Warres upon them, and more especially, by the publike ayde and assistance which our Speeds Hist. p. 1192. to 1197 1 [...]. 36. 1237. Grim­ston. Hist. of the Nether­lands, l. to. p. 611. 612. &c. and Im­periall Hist. p. 730. to 856. Queene Elizabeth and King James by the publike advise and consent of the Realme, gave to the Protestants in France, Germany, Bohemia, and the Netherlands a­gainst the King of France, the Emperour, and King of Spaine, who oppressed and made Warre upon them, to deprive them of their just Liberties and Religion, of which more hereafter. Certainely, had their Defensive Warres against their So­veraigne Princes to preserve their Religion, Liberties, Priviledges, beene deemed Treason, Rebellion, in point of Law; Queene Elizabeth, King James, and our English State, would never have so much dishonoured themselves, nor given so ill an ex­ample to the world, to Patronize Rebells or Traitours; or enter into any solemne Leagues and Covenants with them as then they did, which have been frequently renued and continued to this present.

And to descend to our present times; our King Charles himself hath not onely (in shew at least) openly aided the French Protestants at Ree and Rochel against their King who warred on them; the Germane Princes against the Emperour; the Hollanders, and Prince of Orange, (to whose Sonne hee hath married his elstest Daughter) a­gainst the Spaniard, and entred into a solemne League with them, (which hee could not have done in point of Law, Iustice, Honour, Conscience, had they beene Re­bells or Traytors, for standing on their guards, and making defensive Warres onely for their owne and their Religions preservation;) but likewise by two severall pub­like See the acts of Pacificati­on and Ob­livion in both those Kingdomes. Acts of Parliament, the one in England, the other in Scotland, declaring, the Scots late taking up Armes against him and his evill Counsellors, in defence of their Religion, Lawes, Priviledges, to be no Treason, nor Rebellion; and them to bee his true and loyall Subjects (notwithstanding all aspertions cast upon them by the Pre­laticall and Popish Party) because they had no ill or disloyall intention at all against his Majesties Person, Crowne, and Dignity, but onely a care of their owne preserva­tion, and the redresse of th [...]se Enormities, Pressures, grievances in Church and State, which threatned desolation unto both. If then their seizing of the Kings Fortes, Am­munition, Revenues, and raising an Army for the foresaid ends, hath by his Majesty himselfe, and his two Parliaments of England and Scotland, beene resolved and declared to be no Treason, no Rebellion at all against the King; by the very same, (or better reason, all circumstances duely pondered) our Parliaments present taking up Armes and making a Defensive Warre for the endes aforesaid, neither is, nor can be adjudged Treason or Rebellion, in point of Law or Iustice.

In fine, the King himself in his An exact Collection of all Re­monstrances, &c. p. 329. 331. Answer to the 19. Propositions of both Houses, Iune 3. 1642. Confesseth, and calleth God to witnesse: That all the Rights of his Crowne are vested in him for his Subjects sake: That the Prince may not make use of his high and perpetuall power to the hurt of those, for whose good he hath it; nor make use of the name of publike Necessity, for the gaine of his private Favourites and Followers, to the detriment of his people; That the House of Commons may impeach those, who for their owne ends, though countenanced with any surreptitiously gotten Command of the King, have violated that Law, which he is bound (when he knowes it) to protect, and to protection of which they were bound to advise him, at least, Not to serve him in the [Page 47] Contrary (let the Cavalleers and others consider this:) and the Lords being trusted with a Iudiciary power, are an excellent screene and banke betweene the King and peo­ple, to assist each against any Incroachments of the other; and by just Iudgements to preserve that Law, which ought to be the Rule of every one of the three. Therefore the power Legally placed in both Houses, Being more then sufficient to prevent and re­straine the power of Tyranny; by his Majesties owne Confession; it must needs be such a power as may legally inable both Houses, (when Armes are taken up against them, by the King or any other, to subvert Lawes, Liberties, Religion, and introduce an Arbitrary government;) not onely to make Lawes, Ordinances, and Assessements, but likewise to take up Armes to defend and preserve themselves, their Lawes, Liber­ties, religion, and to prevent, restraine all forces raysed against them, to set up Ty­ranny; else should they want not onely a more then sufficient, but even a s [...]fficient necessary power, to prevent and restraine the power of Tyranny; which being once in armes cannot bee restraned, and prevented, repulsed, with Petitions, Declarations, Lawes, Ordinances, or any Paper Bulwarkes and Fortifications, or other such probable or possible meanes within the Parliaments power, Alber. Gen­til. de Jure Belli, li. 1. ca. 13 14. 15. but onely by Armes and Militarie Forces, as reason and experience in all Ages mani­fest.

From all which pregnant punctuall domesticke Authorities and resolutions of An­cient, Moderne and present times, I presume I may infallibly conclude; That the Parli­aments present taking up necessary Defensive Armes, is neither, Treason, nor Rebelli­on, in iudgement of Law; but a iust and lawfull Act, for the publicke benefit and preser­vation of King, Kingdome, Parliament, Lawes, Liberties, Religion; and so neither their Generall, Souldiers, nor any person whatsoever imployed by them in this War, or contributing any thing towards its maintenance, are or can be Legally indicted, prosecuted, or in any manner proceeded against as Traitors, Rebels, Delinquents against the King or Kingdome; and that all Proclamations, Declarations, Indictments, or proceedings against them, or any of them, as Traitors, Rebels, or Delinquents, are utterly unlawfull, iniust, and ought to be reversed as meere Nullities.

It would be an infinite tedious labour for me to relate, what Civilians and Cano­nists have written concerning Warre, and what Warre is just and lawfull, what not: In briefe, they all generally accord; Gratian cau­sa 23. qu 1. 2. 3. and the Ca­nonists in their Glesses on that Text. Summa Ange­lica & Rosel. Til Ecl Anto. Cortes. Reper. in Abatem tit. Bellum; Iacob. Spi [...]lg & 10. Calvin. Lexi. Iurid. Tit. Bel. Mar [...] Lauden de E [...]l. Tract. Alber. Gent. de jure bell. Petrinus Belli de Re milita. & b [...]l [...]o trast. De Iure b [...]lli B [...]lg. Hugae, 1 [...]99. Hugo Grot. de Iu [...]e Belli et Pa [...]is. That no Warre may or ought to be undertaken cut of covetousnesse, lust, ambition, cruelty, malice, desire of hurt, revenge, or for booty: propter praedam enim militare peccatum est; Whence Joh; Baptist, Luke 3. 14. gave this answer to the Souldiers who demanded of him, what shall we doe? Doe vio­lence to no man: neither accuse any man falsly; and be content with your wages. Ne dum sumptus quaeritur, praedo grassetur. Which prooves the Warres of our plundring, pil­laging Cavalleers altogether sinnefull and unjust: And that such a Warre onely is just, which is waged for the good and necessary defence of the Common-wealth, by publike Edict or consent; or to regaine some thing, which is unjustly detained or taken away, and cannot otherwise be acquired: or to repell or punish some injury; or to curbe the insolency of wicked men, or preserve good men from their uniust oppressions; which Warres ought onely to be undertaken out of a desire of Peace; as they prove out of Augustine, Gregory, Isidor Hispalensis, and others. In one word, they all accord; That a necessary defensive Warre to repulse an Injury, and to preserve the State, Church, Republike, Freedomes, Lives, Chastities, Estates, Lawes, Liberties, Religion, from [Page 48] unjust violence is, and ever hath beene lawfull by the Law of Nature, of Nation; yea, By all Lawes whatsoever, and the very dictate of Reason: And that a [...]n [...]cessary defensive Warre is not properly a Warre, but a meere Defence, against an unlawfull Vi­olence; And ther [...]fore m [...]st of necessitie be acknowledge lawfull; because directly op­posite to, and the onely remedy which G [...]d and Nature have giuen men against T [...]rannicall and unjust invasions, which are both s [...]n [...]full and unlawfull. 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 lawfulnesse of a Defensive Warre, with the words o [...] A [...]beric [...] [...]entilis, Professor of Civill Law in the Vniversitie of Oxford, in Queene Elizabeths Raigne, Who in his learned Booke, De Jure Belli & Pacis, Dedicated to the most illustrious Robert Devoreux Earle of Essex; (Father to the Parliaments present Lord Generall:) determines thus, Lib. 1. ca [...] 13 pag. 92. &c. ‘Although, I say, there be no cause of warre from nature, yet there are causes for which we undertake warre by the conduct of nature; as is the Cle. 2. de Sent. cause of Defence, and when warre is undertaken, because something is denied to to be granted, which nature it selfe affords, and therefore because the Law of nature is violated, Warre is undertaken. We say there is a three fold Defence, one Neces­sary, another Profitable, a third Honest; yet wee shall deeme them all Necessary. Bal 3. cons. 458. & S. cons. 405 He who defends himselfe, is said to be necessitated, neither will Baldus have us distinguish whether he defend himselfe, his goods, or those under his charge, whe­ther neere, or remote; His defence is necessary, and done for necessary defence, a­gainst whom an armed enemy comes, Clar: §. He­micidium. and his against whom an enemy prepares him­selfe: and to such a one the same Bal. ad. d. l. 32. loc. Ios. Decl. l. ut Vim Baldus truly teacheth, ayde is due by compact, whom others likewise approve Ap. Mitr. This warre we may say, was anciently underta­ken against Mithridates, and against his great pre [...]aations. Neither ought wise men to expect, till he had professed himselfe an enemy, but to looke more into his deeds, then words: Thus whiles we say necessity, we speake not properly, but we understand, that necessity which is not rare in humane affaires, and hath wont to bee called neede: which yet precisely is not that true necessity, &c. Phil. de Principe. It is a most unjust conflict, where the one side being agent, the other is onely patient. There is a just de­fence, and slaying, although the slayer might flee without danger and so save him­selfe, whether the slayer who defends himselfe be of that condition, that it would be a disgrace to him to flee, or whether it would be no disgrace. Clra. §. bo­micidium. Which opini­ons are received in the causes of private men; and to mee are much more appro­ved in publike causes. L 3. de Iust. l. 4 ad le. Aq. Ceph. cors. 721 Defence even in Bruites is a Law of nature: Cic. 2. Iuci. 12. fa. 3. it is perswa­ded and constituted in us, not by opinion, but by a certaine imbred faculty: and it is a necessary Law; for what is there (saith Cicero) that can be done against force, without force? This is the most approved above all Lawes. c. 3. de se exc. c. 18 de Homicid. All Lawes, all Rights permit to repell force with force. Ammia 23 There is one Law and that perpetuall, to defend safety by all meanes. Cic. pro Mi­lo, All mean [...]s are honest of preserving safety: this, rea­son to the Lea [...]ued, necessity to B [...]rbarians, cust me to Nat [...]ons, nature it selfe to wilde Beasts, hath prescribed; and this is no written, but borne, or native Law. Like­wise, to defend our Estates, is a necessary defence, and this is a just cause of defen­ding, if wee bee assaulted by warre, though wee our selves have demerited the warre: which thing others, and Paulus Caestrensis have taught. And it will fol­low, [Page 49] and adde this reason; because the Law or Force of warre is not ended by ob­taining the things first demanded; but walkes according to the conquerers pleasure. Aug 19. con Fav. Who is content to repay so much revenge onely as he hath received wrong? saith Augustine, and all know it. This arbitrary power all not subdued may justly decline, and therefore defend themselves against it with Armes. Witnesses, Jason. l. 15. l. de in re. Iudges who are enemies are repelled, although they against whom they proceed gave the cause of the enmity. Con. reg. pec­catum. p. 2. §. 9. To one in Armes he gives all things w [...]o denies just things: said Caesar. Nei­ther doe we heare make question of that blamelesse moderation, where there is no superior. These things therefore are avoyded: and therefore the cause of Romulus shall be said right to me, who defended himselfe by war against the invading Sabines, albeit he had given them cause of warre and offence, by the rape of their wo­men. Bed [...] 5 de Rep. 5. The force of necessity is so great, when men are pr [...]ssed with Armes, that those things which are unjust may seeme most just; as Bodin well, Livie l. 8. warre is just, to whom it is necessary; & piae arma, quibus nulla nisi in armis relinquitur spes: and Armes are pious to those to whom no hope is left but in Armes. Extreame necessity is exempted from all Law. And yet I restraine not the present definition, to extreame necessity, or take extreame according to the condition of mens affaires: for be it so, let it be no neces­sitie, which may be no necessity; Romulus might have avoyded warre by restoring the ravished women; yet he might likewise defend himselfe against the enemies even soone after marching against him. I stay not in this definition: for that is a question belonging to Citizens. Costr. l. 1. de Iust. He who being banished may be hurt without danger, yet he may defend himselfe.’

THe lawfulnesse and justnesse of the Parliaments present necessary Defensive Warre, in point of Common, Civill, Canon Law, and Policy, having been large­ly debated in the premises, because not hitherto discussed in that kinde by any, to my knowledge; I shall in the next place proceed to justifie it in point of Divinity and Conscience; Wherein, though I shall be more concise then I intended, because sundry Learned * Divines, Master Goodwine his Anti-cavallar. and Bone for a Bishop. Ma­ster Burrought his Lord of Hosts. The severall An­swers & Re­plies to Do­ctor Ferne. The honest Broker, Scrip­ture & Rea­son, pleading for Defensive Armes (the best and a­cutest of this kind) with many others. in many late Printed Bookes, common in all mens 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 judgements may be convin­ced by the Legall, may still have some scruples of Conscience resting in them, in reguard of the Theologicall Part, and because some things (perchance) in Point of Theology, which others have wholly omitted, may seasonably be here supplyed, to satisfie Consciences yet unresolved of the justnesse of the present, and all other ne­cessary Defensive Warres, I shall not over-sparingly or cursorily passe through it, without a competent debate.

Now lest the Consciences of any should bee seduced, ensnared with generalities or cleere mistakes through the mis-stating of the points in question, with which de­vise, many have beene hitherto deluded by the Opposites, who cumbate onely with their owne mishapen fancies, discharging all their Gunshot against such Tenets as are not in question, and no waies comming neere the White in Controversie, I shal for my own orderly proceeding, and the better satisfaction of ignorant, scrupulous, seduced consciences, more punctually state the Question, then formerly in the Legall Part; first, Negatively, next, Positively; and then proceede to its debate. Take notice there­fore.

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

[Page 62] Secondly, Neither is this any branch of the dispute: Whether Subjects may lawfully rise up, or rebell against their Prince, by way of Muteny, Faction, or Sedition, without any just, or lawfull publicke ground; or for every trifling injury, or provocation offered them by their Prince? Or whether private men, for personall wrongs (especially where their lives, chastities, livelihoods are not immediatly endangered, by actuall vio­lent, unjust assaults) may in point of Conscience, lawfully resist, or rise up against their Kings, or any other lawfull Magistrates? Since all disavow such tumultuous Insurrections and Rebellions in such cases: yet this is all which the oft objected Ex­amples of Num. 16. Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, with other Scriptures of this Nature, doe or can evince.

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

Fourthly, Neither is this the thing in difference, as most mistake it. Whether the Parliament may lawfully raise an Army to goe immediately and directly against the very person of the King, to apprehend or offer violence to him, much lesse intentio­nally to destroy him, or to resist his owne personall attempts against them, even to the hazard of his life? For the Parliament, and their Army too, have in sundry See an exact Collection of of al Remon. strances, &c. Re­monstrances, Declarations, Protestations, and Petitions, renounced any such disloy­all intention or designe at all; for which there is no colour to charge them; and were his Majestie now alone, or attended onely with his Ordinary Courtly Guard, there needed no Army nor Forces to resist his personall assaults. Yet this is made the principall matter in question by Doctor Ferne, The Re­solving of Conscience. The Necessity of Christian Subjection, &c. A Re­vindication. The Grand Rebellion, &c by An appeale to thy Conscience, and other Anti-parliamentary Pamphlets; who make this the sole Theame of their Discourses: That Subjects may not take up Armes Against their Lawfull Sove­raigne, because he is wicked and unjust; no, though he be an Idolater and Oppres­sor: That, Suppose the King will not discharge his trust, but is bent, or seduced to subvert Religion, Lawes, Liberties, yet Subjects may not take up Armes, and resist the King, it being unwarrantable, and according to the Apostle, damnable, Rom. 13. Yea, this is all the questions the G. valleers and Malignants demand of their Oppo­sites in this cause. What? will you take up Armes; will you fight against, or resist the King? &c. Never stating the question of his Forces, his Army of Papists, Malignants, Delinquents, but onely of the King himselfe abstracted from his inva­ding, depopulating Forces, against whom, in this sence of theirs, the Parliament ne­ver yet raised any Forces, nor made the least resistance hitherto.

These foure particulars then being not in question, I shall here appeale to the most Malignant Conscience: Whether Doctor Ferne, and all other our Opposites, pre­tenders of Conscience, haue not ignorantly, if not maliciously, made shipwracke of [Page 63] their good Consciences (had they ever any) by a wilfull mistating of the Controversie, concerning the present Defensive Warre, in the foure preceding particulars, which they make the onely Questions; when not so much as one of them comes within the Verge of that which is the reall Controversie; and never once naming that in all, or any of their Writings, which is the point indeed? Secondly, Whether there bee any one Text or Reason in all their Pamphlets, particularly applied to any thing which concernes the present Warre, but onely to these foure particulars, which are not in debate? And if so, (as no Conscience can gaine-say it) then there is nought in all the wast Papers they have published, which may either resolve or scruple any Con­science, That the Parliaments Defensive Armes and resistance are unlawfull in point of Divinity, or Conscience, which is steered by the Scriptures Compasse.

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

Whether both Houses of Parliament, and the Subjects by their Authority, for the preservation of their owne Persons, Priviledges, Lawes, Lives, Liberties, Estates, Re­ligion; the apprehension of Voted co [...]tumatious Traitors, and Delinquents, the rescu­ing his seduced Majestie out of the power of Popish pernicious Counsellours and Forces, who end avour the Kingdomes subversion, by withdrawing him from, and incensing him against his Parliament, may not lawfully with a good Conscience, take up necessary de­fensive Armes, and make actuall Warlike resistance against his Majesties Malignant ill Counsellors, and invading Popish Forces ( who now Murther, Rob, Spoile, Sacke, Depopulate the Kingdome in a most Hostile manner, to set up Tyranny, Popery, and an Arbitrary lawlesse Government,) in case they come armed with his personall presence, or commission, to execute these their wicked illegall designes; 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 owne person, or to oppose his Legall, iust Soveraigne Authority?

Or shorter, Whether the Kings Captaines and Souldiers invading the Parliament, and Subiects, 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 illegall Commissions, without his personall presence; or with his presence and Commissions too? And for my part, I thinke 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 lawfull King or Monarch whatsoever, (much lesse the Kings of England, who are no absolute Princes) have any the least Authority from the Lawes of God or man, personally by themselves, or instruments, to doe any injurie or iniustice to their Subiects; how much lesse then by open Force to Murther, Rob, Plunder, Ravish, Ruine, or Spoile them of their Lawes, 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. Isay 14. 15. to 23. 2 Sam 23. 3. Isay 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. Isay 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.

[Page 64] Secondly, 2. That all Subiects and persons whatsoever, are obliged both in point of Law and Conscience to disobey, resist, and not execute, the uniust illegall Commissions, Mandates of their Kings, and other Magistrates. This is evident by the Midwi [...]es refusall to murther the Hebrewes Male-children at King Pharoabs command, for which God blessed them, and built them houses, Exod 1. 15. to 20. By Balaams deniall to curse or defie the Israelites, at King Balacks intreaty. Numb. 22. & 23. & 24. By the refusall of Sauls Guard and Footmen to slay or fall on the Priests a Nob, by King Sauls personall command, though present, and not onely their King but Master too: 1 Sam. [...]2. 17. 18. By Ionathans denyall to kill, or consent to the death of David upon Sauls mandate, though not onely his Soveraigne, but Father, although he might have gained the Crowne by it, and indangered his owne life by refusing it, 1 Sam. 20. 27. to 42. By Sauls Armour-beares forbearance to runne him thorow with his Sword, when he fled before the Philistimes, though he as his King and Master enioyned him to doe it; lest the uncircumcised should come and thrust him through and abuse him. 1 Sam. 3 [...]. 4. By Mordechai his denyall to bend the knee to Haman, the great Favou­rite, though the King had so commanded, Esther 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. By Shadrac [...], Me­shach Abodnego, and Daniels refusall, to eat of the Kings portion of meat and wine as­signe [...] them, least they should be desiled, Dan. 1. 5. to 12. By their peremptory reso­lution, not To fall downe and worship King Nebuchadnezzars golden Image, though twice strictly commanded by the King to doe it, and threatned to be cast into the fiery Furance ( as they were) for refusing it, Dan. 3. 4 to 30. By Daniels disobeying the Kings and Lords Jdolatrous Decree, not to offer a Petition to any God or man for 30. dayes, save of King Darius, under paine of being cast into the Lyons Denne, Dan. 6. 5. to 24. By the Pharises and chiefe Priests Officers neglect to apprehend our Saviour for his Preaching, though enjoyned so to doe by their Masters, Iohn 7. 32. to 48. By the Apostles refusall to give over Preaching, and perseverance in Preaching, notwith­standing the High Priests and Councels expresse Inhibitions and doubled Commands, seconded with Apprehensions, Imprisonments, Scourgings; and their direct resoluti­ons in this very case, See Gratian Caus. 11. q. 3. 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 Iewes dislike, Acts 11. 1. to 19. with infinite Presidents of this nature in Ecclesiasticall Histories; the very sufferings of all the See Fox Acts & Mo­num. French Book of Mat­tyrs, with o­thers. 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, 3 That as all Kings illegall unjust commands are void in Law, and will no waies extenuate the guilt, or justifie the actions of those instruments who exe­cute them in point of Law, 1 Pag. 10. 11. &c. as I havef formerly cleared; so are they likewise meer 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, plucke him out of his dwelling place, and root him out of the land of the Living, for executing King Sauls bloody command upon the Priests at Nob, 1 Sam. 22. By Gods exemplary punishment upon those Souldiers who by King Ne­buchadnezzars speciall command, bound the three Children and cast them into the firy Fur­nace; who were slaine by the flames of the Furna [...]e, though these three Martyrs had no [Page 65] harme in the Furnace it selfe, Dan. 3. 20. to 28. By Gods consuming the two Captaines 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 Iohn Baptist given to Souldiers themselves, Luke 3. 14. Doe violence to no man: ( neither by the Kings, nor Generalls Command) neither accuse any falsely. By 1 Tim. 5. 22. Lay hands sodainly on no man, ( no more in a violent, Military, then an Ecclesiasticall sense) neither be partakers of other mens sinne [...]: Compared with the next forecited Scriptures; with Rom. 1. 32. Math. 15. 14. Psal. 50. 18 21. Prov. 1. 10. to 16. Oba [...]. vers. 10. to 16 Isay 1. 23. with Isay 9 16. The leaders of this people cause them to erre, and those th [...]t are led of them are destroyed. What there­fore Saint Iohn writes in another case, 2 Iohn 10. 11. If there come any unto you ( be he an Archbishop, Bishop, Archdeadon, Ferne himselfe, or any Court Chap­laine 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 evill Deeds: I shall apply to this particular of executing Kings unjust Commands against their people; they are partakers of their Kings wickednesse, if they do but intertaine 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 feare, or base re­spects.

These three Conclusions being irrefragable, Argument [...] My first Argument to justifie resistance from them shall be this. That violence against the Subjects persons, Consciences, Fa­milies, Estates, Properties, Priviledges, or Religion, which neither the King him­selfe in proper person, nor any his Officers, nor Souldiers by command from him, have any Autoritie by the Lawes of God or man, in Law or Conscience to inflict: and which in Conscience ought not to be obeyed, but rejected as a meere nulli [...]y, even by the instruments enjoyned for to execute it; may justly with a safe Conscience be resisted by the Parliament and Subjects; there being not one syllable in Gods Word to contradict it. But the violence now offered by the Kings Forces to the Parliament and Subjects every where, is such. Therefore it may justly with a safe Conscience be resisted; especially in the Kings Commanders and Souldiers, who are neither the King himself, nor the Higher Powers ordained by God; and no other then plain Theeves and Murtherers in Law and Conscience, if they plunder, kill, spoile; their Commissi­ons being but Nullities in both; and they in this particular meere private men, with­out any Authority to iustifie their actions, as I have already proved.

Secondly, 2 That resistance which is warranted by direct Precedents recorded, ap­proved in Scripture even by God himself, must questionlesse be lawfull 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. Therfore, doubtles, it must be law­full 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 backe King Ahaziah his Messengers (sent by him to enquire of Baal [...]zebub the God of Ekron, whether hee 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 Captaines with 50. men apeece, one after another, to appre­hend the Prophet for this affront; (as Antiq. Iud. lib. 9. cap. 1. Ipse Prophetae cum minatus vim esset, ut ni sponte sua faciat, vi co­actum eo per­trahat. &c. Iosephus, with other Interpreters accord,) who comming with their forces to him, said; Thou man of God, the King hath said, [Page 66] come downe quickly. To whom he successively answered: If I be a man of God, then let fire come downe from Heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty; And there came fire from heaven thereupon, and consumed two Captaines and their fifties: but the third Cap­taine 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 goe downe 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 himselfe; That it is lawfull for Subjects in some cases, to resist the unjust violence of the Souldiers and Captaines of their Kings though armed with their Regall Commands. Secondly, by the History of the Pro­phet Elisha, 2 Kings 6. 31, 32, 33. Who when King Ioram (his Soveraigne) had sworne unjustly in his fury; God doe 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 farre from submitting to this Instru­ment of his; that he Commanded the Elders sitting then with him in the house, to looke when the Messenger came, and shut the doore, and Hold him fast at the Doore, though the sound of his Masters feet (the King) were behind him; whom he stiles, the sonne of a Murderer. Might these two eminentest Prophets thus openly resist the Captaines, Souldiers, and unjust Executioners of their Princes, with a good Conscience; and may not others lawfully doe the like? No doubt they may. Thirdly, (If I bee not much mistaken) this kind of resistance is warranted even by Christ himselfe, 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, unlesse it were for his and their owne better Defence, being the time when he was to be apprehended. Matth. 26. Mar. 14. Luc. 22. Iohn 18. 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 Iesus (and John direct­ly saith it was Peter) smote a servant of the High Priest (whose name was Malchus) and cut off his right eare. Hereupon Jesus answered and said, Suffer yee Thus Farre: So Luc. 22. 50. 51. Luke; Marke relates no answer at all reprehending this fact: Iohn 18. 10. 11. Iohn records his speech to Peter thus. Then, said Iesus unto Peter, Put up thy Sword into the sheath. The Cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drinke? To which Matthew addes, Math. 26. 52 53. 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 bee 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 defence of himselfe, and Peters smiting now altogether unlawfull in it selfe; but onely inconsistent with Gods present providence, which it should seeme to crosse. Christ was now by Acts 2. 23. Cap. 4. 27. 28. Luk. 24. 21. 26. 27. Isay 53. Gods eternall decree, and the Scriptures pre­diction, (which must be necessarily fulfilled) to suffer death upon the Crosse 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 Saviour, he could not then have suffered, nor the Scriptures [Page 67] be fulfilled: had it not beene for this speciall reason (rendred by Christ himselfe, to cleare all scruples against the Lawfulnesse of selfe-defence in such cases,) Peter might still have used his sword to rescue his Master from these Catchpoles violence; and if he and his fellowes had beene too weake to withstand them, Christ was so farre from imagining that hee might not have lawfully defended himselfe; that hee informes 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, plainely, iustifies the lawfulnesse of such a for­cible defence with Armes to preserve a mans life from unjust execution: Iohn 18. 36 If my Kingdome were of this world, Then would my Servants fight (in my Defence and Rescue) that I should Not be delivered to the Iewes: but now my kingdom is not from hence. All which considered, clearely justifies, the Lawfulnesse of resisting the Kings, or higher Powers Officers, in cases of apparant unjust open violence or as­saults; and withall answers one grand argument against resistance from our Saviours present Example: namely, See Doct. Fernes resol­ving of Con­science. An Appeale to thy Consci­ence, with o­thers who muchrely on this ill foun­dation. Christ himselfe made no resistance when hee was unjustly apprehended; Ergo, Christians his Followers (Ergo, no Kings, no Magistrates too, as well as Christ the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, for they are Christians as well as subjects;) ought not to make any forcible resistance of open violence: Which ar­gument is a meere inconsequent; because the reason why Christ resisted not these Pur­sevants, and High Priests Officers, was onely, that his Fathers decree, and the Scrip­tures foretelling his Passion might be fulfilled, as himselfe resolves; not because hee deemed resistance Vnlawfull, which he even then approved, though hee practised it not, as these Texts doe fully proove.

Fourthly, 4. The lawfulnesse of a defensive Warre, against the invading Forces of a Soveraigne, is warranted by the example of the City Abel; which stood out and defended it selfe against Ioab, Davids Generall, 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 Iewes, the King after Hamans Execution (through Gods great mercy, and Morde­caies and Queene Esters diligence) to prevent this bloody massacre by their Enemies, granted to the Iewes in every City, by Letters under his Seale, ‘To gather them­selves together, and to stand for their lives, to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish all the power of the people and Province That would Assault them, both litle ones and women, and to take the spoile of them for a prey; and that the Iewes should be ready against the day, to avenge themselves of their enemies. Hereupon when the day, that the Kings Commandment and Decree ( for their extirpation) drew neere to be put in execution, in the day that the enmies of the Iewes hoped to have power over them; the Iewes gathered themselves together in their Cities, through­out all the Provinces of King Ahasuerus, to lay hand on such as sought their hurt; and no man could withstand them, for the feare of them fell upon all people: And all the Rulers of the Provinces, and the Lieutenants, Deputies, and Officers of the King helped the Iewes, because the feare of Mordecai fell upon them: So the Iewes smote all their enemies with the stroake of the Sword, and slaughter, and destructi­on, and did what they would unto those that hated them. In the Palace they slew [Page 66] eight hundred men, and Hamans tenne sonnes, on severall dayes. And the other Iewes that were in the Provinces, gathered themselves together, and Stood for their Lives, and had rest from their enemies, and slew of their foes seventy and five thousand, but they laid not their hands on the prey.’ Loe here a Defensive war, justified, and granted lawfull, by the Kings owne Letters to the Iewes, against their enemies, who by former Charters from him, had Commission wholly to extirpate them. Neither had this licence of the King in point of Conscience, been lawfull, had their defence and resistance of the Kings former Commission been wholly unlawfull. 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 beene unlawfull, by reason of the Kings first unjust Decree, which they ought not in Conscience to submit to, without repugnancy; But onely to enable the Iewes, then Captives, and scattered abroad one from another in every Province, with more convenience, securitie, boldnesse, and courage now to joyne their forces together, to resist their malicious potent enemies; to daunt them the more thereby; Nature it selfe, yea, and all Lawes in such a bloody Nationall Butchery as this, without any just cause at all, both taught and enabled every one of the Iewes, 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 spoile of them for a prey; which they refused to doe, because they deemed it unjust, notwithstanding the Kings permission and concession, which as to these particulars, was illegall, and more then hee could justly grant. This generall Nationall resistance of Gods own people then of their assaulting cruell Enemies, even among Strangers, in the land of their Captivity under a forraigne Enemy, with the former and other following precedents, will question­lesse more then conjecturally prove, if not infallibly resolve, The lawfulnesse of a ne­cessary Defensive Warre, and opposition by free Subiects, against their Kings assailing Forces which seekes their ruine, 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 Iewes were to resist and slay their enemies by this Kings Letters and Authority.

Thirdly, 3 That kind of resistance which hath no one Text, nor Example in Scripture to impeach its lawfulnesse, but many Texts and precedents to countenance it, must doubtlesse be lawfull in point of Conscience. But the resisting of Kings invading pil­laging, destructive Forces (who have nothing to plead; to justifie all their Villanies but a void illegall Warrant) hath no one Text nor example in Scripture to impeach its law­fulnesse, for ought I can finde; (and if there be any such, I wish the Opposites would object it, for Rom. 13. as I shall shew hereafter, doth no waies contradict, but ap­prove it:) But it hath many Texts and precedents to countenance it; as the pre­mises and sequell attest: 4. Therefore it must doubtlesse bee-lawfull in point of Con­science.

Fourthly, it is confessed by all men, (yea those who are most intoxicated with an [...] Luc. O­ [...]inder. En­ch [...]nd Contr c. 9. & 10. De Magistr. [...]. Anabaptisticall spirit, condemning all kind of warre, refusing to carry Armes to defend themselves against any Enemies, Theeves, or Pirates) that it is lawfull not onely passively to resist their Kings unlawfull Commands, and invading Forces, but [Page 69] likewise by flight, hiding, or other pollicies, to evade and prevent their violence; which is warranted not onely by Exod. 2. 15. &c. Moses, 1 Sam. 19. to 31. Davids, and 1 King. 19. Elijahs, their severall flights from the violence of the Egyptians, Saul, and Iezabel, who sought their lives; but likewise by Mat. 2. 13. 14. 15. Ioseph, Mary, and Christ himselfe, who fled into Egypt to escape the hands and but chery of King Herod; by Christs own direction to his Disciples Matth. 10. 23. But when they persecute you in this City, flee yee into another; and that Predi­ction of his Matth. 23. 34. Behold, I send unto you Prophets, and wise men, and Scribes, and some of them ye shall kill and crucifie, and some of them shall you scourge in your Synagogues, and persecute them from City to City; which was really fulfilled. Acts 8. 3. 4. c. 9. 1 2. c, 11. 19. c. 13. 50, 51. c. 14. 1, to 24, c. 17. 1. to 16. c. 22. 42. c. 26. 11. 12. c. 9. 24, 25, 26. 2 Cor. 11. 32. 33. Rev. 12. 6. Of which reade more in Ter­tullian his booke De Fuga in persecutione. Hence then I argue thus. That unjust violence of Princes and their Armies, which Subjects with a safe conscience may de­cline and flee from, when as they want power, meanes, or convenience to resist it, they may no doubt lawfully resist even with force of Armes, when they have suf­ficient meanes and conveniences to resist, and cannot flee or submit thereto, without the publicke ruine: since the same justice and equity, which enables them by flight or stratagem to decline unjust assaults of a superior power, or its judgements, doth like­wise enable them to escape and prevent it with resistance, when they cannot doe it by flight or other policie: If then they may lawfully with a safe conscience hide, flee, or use lawfull policies, to prevent the open injust violence of their kings and their Offi­cers, when not guilty of any capitall crime deserving censures; because by the very light of nature, and Law of Charity they are obliged to preserve themselves from un­just tyrannie; and are no wayes bound to subject themselves to the cruelty, the unjust assaults, or oppressions of others: then by the selfesame reason, they may lawfully with force of Armes defend themselves against such violent unjust attempts which they are no way obliged to submit unto, when as they cannot conveniently secure themselves and the publicke, but by such resistance, and should both betray their owne, the pub­licke safety, and Religion (as the Subjects and Parliament should now do) in case they did not resist by force of Armes to the utmost of their power: and become 1 Tim. 5. 8. worse than. Infidels, who have even thus oft provided for their owne and the Republickes se­curitie.

Fiftly, God himselfe, the fountaine oft justice, the Zeph 3. 5. Esay 45. 21. God of 1 Cor. 14. 33 40. Order, the Iob 7. 20. preserver of humane society who detests of all tyranny, Psal. 5. 6. Psal. 11. 5. cruelty, oppression, injustice, out of his John 3. 16. 1 John 4 9. Phi­lanthropie (which brought the Sonne of his bosome from heaven to earth) would ne­ver certainely in point of policy or conscience prohibit that, which is the onely pro­bable meanes and apparent remedy, to prevent, suppresse disorder, tyranny, cruelty, oppression, injustice, yea confusion in the world; and to preserve good order and hu­mane society: a truth so apparent, that no rationall man can contradict it. Therefore questionesse he never prohibited forcible necessary resistance of the highest powers and their instruments in cases of open unjust violence, and hostile invasion made upon their people to ruine them, or subvert their established government, Laws, Liberties, Iustice, Religion: There being no other probable ordinary meanes left to any King­dome, Nation, People, to preserve their government, lives, Lawes, Liberties, Reli­gion, and to prevent, suppresse, or redresse tyrannie, cruelty, disorder, confusion, yea utter ruine, when their Kings and Governors degenerate into Tyrants, invading [Page 71] them with open force, but onely defensive Armes: prayers and teares alone, without military opposition by force of Armes, being no more able to defend a person, City or Kingdome against Oppressing Princes and their Armies, then against theeves, Pyrates or common enemies; whom they must and ought to resist, as well with Armes as Ori­sons, with Speares as well as Teares, 1 La [...] 2. 12. to 42. Alfon­sià Carthage­na Regum, Hisp. Acaphel. c. 44. else they should but tempt the Lord and destroy themselves (like those ^c Iewes and Gothes who would not fight upon the Sabbath, and so were slaine by their enemies without resistance:) yea wilfully suffer the Common­weale to be subverted, Religion extirpated; Lawes trampled under feete, their own posterities to be enslaved, ruined without any opposition, even in a moment. For were it utterly unlawfull, and no lesse than Treason or Rebellion, in point of consci­ence for any subjects to take up Defensive Armes to resist the Kings army, or forces, consisting for the most part of Papists, Delinquents, deboist Athesticall persons of bro­ken fortunes, feared consciences and most irreligious lives, I appeale to every mans conscience, how soone these unresisted Instruments of cruelty would utterly extir­pate our protestant Religion, and common faith, for which we are enjoyned earnestly to contend and strive: Jude 3. Phil. 1. 27. 28. And shall we then yeeld it up and betray it to our adversaries without strife or resistance? how sodainely would they ruin our Parliament, Lawes, Liberties; subvert all civill order, government; erect an arbitrary Lawlesse tyrannicall Regency regulated by no Iawes but will and Iust? how soone would they murther, imprison, execute our Noblest Lords, Knights, Bur­gesses, best Ministers, and Commonwealths-men for their fidelity to God, their King and Country? how many Noble families would they disinherite? how many wives, widdowes, Virgins would they force and ravish; what Cities, what Countries, would they not totally pillage, plunder, sack, ruine, consume with fire and sword? how soone would our whole Kingdome become an Acheldama, a wildernesse, a de­solation, and the surviving inhabitants either slaves or beasts, if not devils incarnate? Yea how speedy might any private Officers, Captaines, Commanders, by colour of il­legall Commissions and commands from the King, or of their Offices, and all the notorious rogues and theeves of England, under colour of being listed in the Kings Army, if the people might not in point of Law or Conscience resist them with Armes who came armed for to act their villanies, maliciously rob, spoyle, plunder, murther all the Kings leige people, without any remedy or prevention, and by this pretext, that they are the Kings Souldiers, sodainely seise and gaine all the armes, treasure, forts, ammunition, power of the Realme, into their possessions in a moment; and having thus strengthned themselves, and slaine the Kings faithfull subjects, usurpe the crown it selfe if they be ambitious, as many private Captaines and Commanders have anci­ently slaine divers Roman and Grecian Emperours, yea sundry Spanish, Gothish and Moorish Kings in Spain by such practises and aspired to their Crowns, (of which there are sundry such like presidents in most other Realmes:) to prevent, redres, which seve­rall destructive mischiefes to People, Kingdome, Kings themselves, God himselfe hath left us no other certaine, proper, sufficient remedy but a forcible resistance, which all Kingdomes, Nations throughout the world, haue constantly used in such cases, as I shall manifest more largely in the Appendix. Therefore certainely it must needs bee lawfull, being Gods and Natures speciall Ordinance to secure innocent persons, Ci­ties, Nations, Kingdomes, Lawes, Liberties, Lives, Estates, Religion, and mankinde it selfe, against the hurtfull Lusts of unnaturall Tyrants, and their accursed instru­ments, [Page 70] against ambitious, treacherous, male-contented Spirits, maliciously bent against the publicke weale, and peace. There are two things onely which usually restraine inferiour persons from murthering, robbing, disseising, injuring one another; the one is, feare of punishment by the Magistrate; the other, feare and danger of being resi­sted, repulsed with shame and losse of limbe or life by those they violently assault, injure; and were this once beleeved, received for Law or Divinity in the world, that it were unlawful to resist, repulse a theefe, murtherer, riotor, or disseisor comming in the Kings name, long enjoy his life, goods, liberty, lands, but some or other would deprive him of them notwithstanding all restraints of Lawes, of penalties, and main­taine suites against him with his owne estate violently seised on; the right of lawfull defence, being every mans best security, to preserve his life, estate, in peace against the violence of another, whence the wisdom of the Common Law, makes every mans house his Castle, in the necessary defence wherof, and of his person, goods from the violence, rape of others, it gives him libertie to beate, repulse, yea kill injuri­ous assailants: which right of defence if once denyed, would open a wide gap to all wickednesse, injustice, disorders whatsoever, and speedily bring in absolute confu­sion, subversion of all property, Law, Order. As for Emperors, Kings, great Officers, and other ungodly instruments, armed with Princes unjust commissions, who deeme themselves above the reach of humane Lawes, censures, and accountable for their unjust actions to none but God himselfe, there is no other knowne barre or obstacle to hinder or restraine their armed violence, Tyrannie, oppressions, but onely the feare of the oppressed assaulted subjects armed resistance; which if once denyed to be lawfull, all Royalties would soone be transformed into professed Tyrannies, all Kings & Magistrates into Tyrants, all Liberty into slavery, property into communitie, and every one would thereby be exposed as a voluntary prey to the arbitrary cruelty covetousnesse, avarice, lusts, of the greatest men. Therefore doubtlesse this armed re­sistance cannot but be lawfull, necessary, just, in point of Law and Conscience, to eschew these generall mischiefes.

Sixtly, all will readily grant it lawfull in case of Conscience, for subjects to resist a forraigne enemie which invades them with force of Armes, though animated by the King himselfe to such invasion; and why so, but because they are their enemies, who would wrongfully deprive them of their native inheritance, Liberties, estates, and worke them harme; upon which ground, we read in the 2 Kings 3. 21. That when the Moabites heard that the Kings of Israel, Judah and Edom came up to fight against them with a great Army, they gathered all that were able to put on armour, and upward to withstand them, and stood in the border; and when ever the Midianites, Philis [...]ines, Sy­rians, Babylonians, AEgyptians, Cananites or other enemies came to assault the Jsrae­lites, they presently assembled together in Armes to encounter and repulse them, as the Histories of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, the Kings, Chronicles, and Nehemiah abun­dantly evidence, almost in every Chapter. If then Subjects may with a good Con­science resist forragin enemies on this ground alone; then likewise domestick foes and their Kings own Forces, when they become open enemies, to rob, kill, plunder, de­stroy them as inhumanely, as injuriously as the worst Forraigne foes, there being the selfe same ground for the lawfulnesse of resistance of the one as the other, and if the ballance encline to one side more than other, an intestine enemie being more unnatu­rall, unjust, hurtfull, dangerous, and transgressing more Lawes of the Realme [Page 70] (which obliege not strangers) than a Forraigner, and a Civill warre being far worse, and more destructive than a Forraigne; the resistance of an homebred enemy, must be the more just and lawfull of the two, even in point of Conscience.

Seventhly, The very Law of God both alloweth and commands all men, to resist their spirituall enemies, with spirituall Armes: Jam 4. 7. Resist the Devill and he will flee from you, otherwise he would easily subdue and destroy us. 1 Pet. 5. 8. 9. Be sober and vigilant, because your adversarie the devill as a rearing Lyon walketh about seeking whom he may devoure: whom resist stedfast in the faith, Ephes. 5. 10 to 19. Finally my brethren be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might: Put on the whole Armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devill. For we wrestle (or warre) not against flesh and blood, but against Principalities, against powers, against the Rulers of the darknesse of this world, against Spirituall wickednesse (or wicked spirits) in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole Armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evill day, and having done all, to stand: Stand therefore having your loynes girded about with truth, &c. Above all taking the sheild of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked; And take the helmes of Salva­tion, and the sword of the spirit, which is the Word of God: Praying alwayes with all prayer and supplication. Hence Christians are termed, Souldiers of Iesus Christ, and Christianity a warfare, against the world, the flesh, and Prince of the world, the Devill: 2 Tim. 2. 3, 4. 2 Cor. 10. 3. 1 Tim. 1. 18. Iam. 41. 1 Pet. 2. 11. Rom. 7. 23. 2 Cor. 10. 4. 1 Cor. 9 7, I say 41. 2. Rev. 12. 7. 17. In which warfare, we must fight and resist even unto blood striving against sinne, Heb. 12. 4. Vsing not onely pray­ers and teares, but other spirituall weapons of warre, mighty through God, able to cast downe every high thing that exalteth it selfe, to bring into Captivitie every thought to the obedience of Christ, and to revenge all disobedience, 2 Cor. 10. 4. 5. 6. If then we may and must manfully resist, and fight against our Spirituall enemies, though Principalities, Powers, Rulers, wicked spirits in high Places; and the Iohn 14. 30. c. 12. 31. c. 16. 11. Prince of this world himself, the Devill, when they assaut and seeke to devoure our soules: then by the selfesame reason, we lawfully with a safe conscience, may, yea ought to resist, repulse our corpo­rall enemies when they maliciously, unjustly, forcibly assault us, against all rules of Law, of Conscience, to murther, enslave, destroy our bodies, Soules, Religion, the Repub­licke, which must be dearest to us, though they be Principalities, Powers, Rulers, wicked Spirits in high Places; yea Princes of this world; with all their under Officers and Instruments of cruelty, not onely with prayers and teares, but corporall Armes and force, because they unnaturally, tyrannically, seeke the destruction of our bodies, estates, Liberties, Republicke, Religion, there being no inhibition in Scripture, not to resist the one or other, but infinite Texts authorising men, not onely to resist, but warre against, yea slay their malicious open enemies, untill they be sub [...]ued or destroyed, Exod. 23. 22. 27. Levi. 26. 7. 8. Num. 24. 8. Deut. 20. throughout. Iosh. c 8. to c. 13. 2 Sam. 22. 38. to 42. 1 Chron. 17. 8. 10. Esth. 9. 5. Neither doe the Texts of Mat. 5 39. Luk. 6. 29. But I say unto you, that ye resist not evill, but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek [...], turne to him the other also, and him that taketh away thy cloake, forbid not to take thy c [...]ate also; prohibit all actuall resistance of publick violence offered by enemies to our persons, goods, or lawfull defensive warres; which precept (as is cleare by the context, and resolved by Gratian. Caus. 23. Qu. 1. Augustine, Gratian, Sum Theolog. Pars. 3 qu. 47. m. 3. Ofiander E [...] ibid. c. 9. [...] Alensis, and ^f others) extends onely to some private injuries and revenges, and to the inward patient [Page 71] 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 actuall bearing of all grosse 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 Armes violence and op­pressions of their Princes and Governours: and that Text of Iames 5. 6. Ye have con­demned and killed the just, and he doth not resist you, (which some thinke is meant of Christ alone) proves onely, that some just men, and many Martyrs have beene con­demned and killed without resistance, as our Saviour was; not that it is unlawfull to resist an open enemy, theefe or murtherer, who comes to kill, rob, or plunder us a­gainst Law and Conscience. I read of Gratian Caus 23. qu. 1. les Flours desvies des sanctes part. 2. p. 470. 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 exemple, exhorted them, not to hinder his martyrdome; yet the people lawfully rescued innocent Ionathan, from that unjust death which his Father King Saul twice vowed hee should undergoe: 1 Sam. 14. 15. 38. to 46. Some mens 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 yeeld their purses up to high-way theeves, or their persons, goods, ships, to Turkes and Pyrates, 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, shippes, goods, liberties, and become Turkish Gally-slaves, to the ruine of their estates, bodies, soules, which miseries by a manfull just defence, they might have easily prevented. All which considered; I see no ground in Scripture, nor reason, but that temporall enemies of all kindes which wrongfully invade our persons or estates by open force of Armes in a warlike manner, may be resisted with temporall wea­pons, as well as spirituall enemies with spirituall Armes.

Eighthly, 8. That which all Nations in all ages by the very light of nature have con­stantly practised, as just and lawfull, must doubtlesse Ro [...]. 2. 15. 15. be lawfull in point of consci­ence, if there be no Law of God to the contrary. But selfe-defence against invading Tyrants and their instruments hath by the very light of Nature beene constantly practised, by all Nations in all ages, as just and lawfull, which the premises, the Ap­pendix, the Histories of all ages evidence; theire being never any one Nation or King­dome for ought I finde, that ever yet reputed it a thing unlawfull in point of Con­science; to resist the open malicious destructive tyranny, violence, hostility of their un­naturall Princes, or that desisted from any such resistance, giving themselves up wil­lingly to their outragious lusts and butcheries, without any opposition (though some private men and Martyres have sometimes done it, upon particular reasons, as to avoid the scandall of Religion; to beare witnesse to the truth, for the confirmation and con­version of others; or for want of power or oportunity to resist; or to avoyd a gene­rall massacre of their fellow Christians, or because they were onely a few private men; and their religion directly opposite to the Lawes and government under which they lived, or the like, not because they judged all resistance simply unlawfull, as Dr. Fernes re­solving of Conscience; An appeale to thy Con­science. blinde Doctors falsey informe us, which I shall prove hereafter;) and there is no Law of God at all to prohibite such resistance: therefore doubtlesse it must be law­full, even in point of conscience.

Ninthly, 9. that which is directly opposite to what is absolutely illegall, and unjust in point of conscience, and the chiefe law full obstacle and remedy, to prevent or redresse it, must certainely be just, be lawfull 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 defence by force of Armes, is directly opposite to that open Armed violence, and tyranny which is absolutely illegall and unjust in point of Con­science, and the chiefe lawfull remedy and obstacle to prevent or redresse it: as reason, experience and the premises evidence. Therefore it must necessarily be just and law­full, even in the Court of Conscience.

Tenthly, 10. That resistance which doth neither oppose the Kings royal person, nor law­full Authority; must certainely be lawfull 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 Royall person, (for that is absent, and his Ca­valliers I hope are no Kings, nor yet invested with the priviledges of Kings; nor yet of his lawfull Authority;) his illegall Commissions and Commands, being meere nullities in Law, transferring no particle of his just Authority to those who execute them. Therefore it must certainely be lawfull in point of conscience.

Eleventhly, 11. That resistance which is the onely remedy to keepe not onely Kings themselves, but every one of their Officers and Souldiers from being absolute Ty­rants, Monarchs; and the denyall whereof, equalizeth every souldier, and particular Officer to Kings, yea God himselfe (whose prerogative only it is to have an Rom. 9. 19. 20. absolute unresistable wil;) must doubtlesse 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 Souldiers in their plunderings, rapines, fierings, sackings of Townes, beating, wounding, murthering the Kings leige peo­ple and the like; will not every common Souldier and Officers be an absolute Tyran, equall in Monarchie to the great Turke himself, and paramount the King, who hath no absolute irresistable Soveraignety in these particulars? Either therefore this resistance must be granted, not onely as lawfull, but simply necessary, else every officer and com­mon Souldier wi [...]l be more than an absolute King and Monarch, every subject worse than a Turkish slave, and exposed to as many uncontrolable Soveraignes, as there are Souldiers in the Kings Army, be their conditions never so vile, their qualitie never so mean, and the greatest Peeres on the Parliaments party, must be irresistably subject to these new absolute Soveraignes lusts and wills.

Twelfthly, 12. if all these will not yet satisfie Conscience in the Lawfulnesse the justnesse of the Parliaments and peoples present forcible resistance of the Kings Captaines and Forces, though Armed with an illegall Commission (which makes no­thing at all in the case, because voyd in Law) there is this one Argument yet remaining which will satisfie the most scrupulous, malignant, opposite Conscience: That neces­sary forcible resistance which is Authorised, and Commanded by the Supreamest law­full power and highest Soveraigne Authority in the Realme, must infallibly be just and lawfull, even in point of Conscience, by the expresse Resolution of Rom. 13. and our opposites owne confession; who have See Doctor Ferne; Ap­peale to thy Conscience; The Grand Rebellion; The Necessity of Christian Subjection, and others. no other Argument to prove the Offensive warre on the Kings part Lawfull, but because it is commanded; and the Parliaments and Subjects Defensive Armes Unlawfull, but because prohibited by the King, whom they salsely affirm?, to be the highest Soveraigne power in the Kingdome, above the Parliament [Page 73] and whole Realme collectively considered. But this resistance of the Kings Popish ma­lignant, invading Forces; is Authorized and Commanded by the expresse 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 Realme, Paramount the King himselfe, who is but the Parliaments and Kingdomes Publicke Royall 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 proceede to the just­nesse of opposing them by way of forcible resistance when accompanied with his per­sonall presence.

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

First, 1. By the ancientest precedent of a defensive warre 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 yeeres, defended themselves by armes and battle against his assaults, and the Kings joyned 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 himselfe, the Father of the faithfull, in defence of his Nephew Lot, to rescue him and his substance from the enemie, taking with him 318. trained men of his owne 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 peoples forcible defence, against their invading enemies, in the behalfe of his captivated plundred Nephew and Neighbors.

Secondly, 2. by the Example of the Israelities, who were not onely 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 AEgyptian bondage, after 430. yeares captivity, un­der colour of demanding but three dayes liberty to goe into the wildernesse to serve the Lord, and Pharoah, (notwithstanding all Gods Miracles and Plagues,) refusing still to let them depart, till enforced to it by the slaughter of the Egyptians first borne; as soone as the Israelites were marching away, Pharaoh and the AEgyptians, 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 sayd unto the people feare ye not, stand still, and see the Salvation of the Lord, which he will shew to you this day: for the AEgyptians whom you have seene to day, ye shall see them againe no more for ever, the Lord shall fight for you, &c. And hereupon God himselfe discomfited rou­ted, and drowned them all in the red Sea: I would demaund in this case, whether the Isra­lites might not here lawfully (for their owne redemption from unjust bondage) have fought against and resisted their Lord, King Pharaoh, and his invading Host, accom­panied [Page 74] with his presence, had they had power and hearts to doe it, as well as God himselfe, who fought against and destroyed them on their behalfe; If so, (as all men I thinke must grant, unlesse they will censure God himselfe) then a defensive warre in respect of life and liberty onely, is just and Lawfull even in conscience, by this most memorable story.

Thirdly, 3. by that example recorded Iudges 3. 8. 9. 10. where God growing an­gry with the Israelites for their Apostacie 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. yeares. Here was a lawfull title by conquest and 8 yeeres sub­mission seconding it. But when the children of Israel cryed unto the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer to them even Othniel, the sonne of Kenaz: and the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and he went out to warre, and the Lord delivered Cushan-rishatiam King of Mesopotamia into his hands, and his hand prevailed against him, so the land had rest 40. yeeres. Loe here a just defensive warre 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 onely resisted but con­quered, taken prisoner, and his former dominion abrogated, by those that served him, as conquered subjects.

Fourthly, 4. by the example of Ehud, and the Israelites, Iudges chap. 3. 11. to 31 where we finde, God himself strengthning Eglon King of Moab against the Israelites for their sinnes, who thereupon gathering an Army smote Israel, possessed their Ci­ties, so as the Israelites served this King 18. yeeres. Here was a title by conquest, approved by God, submitted to by the Israelites: yet after all this, when the chil­dren of Israel cryed 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 therupon blew the trumpet, commanded the Israelites to follow him to the warre, slew ten thousand valiant men of Moah, which he subdued, and procured rest to his Country 40. yeeres. God, his Spirit, Word, approving this his action.

Fifthly, 5. by the example of Barack and Deborah, Iudges ch. 4. and 5. Where God selling the children of Israel for their sinnes into the hand of Iabin King of Cannan; and his Captaine Sisera, for 20. yeeres space, during which he mightily oppressed them, hereupon Barack, at the instigation of the Prophetesse 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 Iabin the King of Canaan, before the children of Israel: which warre is by a speciall 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, Iudges 4. 23. Curse ye Meroz (saith the Angel of the Lord) curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof, because they come not out to the helpe of the Lord, to the helpe 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 sunne when it goeth forth in his might. What more can conscience desire to justifie the lawfulnesse of a just defensive warre?

Sixthly, 6. by the Example of Gideon and the Israelites, Iudges c. 6. Who being de­livered [Page 75] by God into the hands of the Prince of Midian for seven years, Gideon by spe­ciall incouragement and direction from God himselfe, with a poore despicable Army of 300. men, defeated the great Hoast of the Midianites, and tooke and slew their Princes. By these 4 last pregnant presidents, it is most evident, that a forraigne King who hath gained a Title onely by conquest (though with divine concurrence, by way of punishment for that peoples sinne) may lawfully be resisted, repulsed, even after some yeares forced subjection and submission to him, by the people conquered, to regaine their former liberties.

Seventhly, 7. by the precedent of Abimelech King of Shechem, who being elected King by the voluntary assents of the people, God afterwards sending an evill spirit of division between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; thereupon they revolted from him, and chusing Gael for their Captaine, fortified the City against him; and when Abimelech came with an Army to take in the Towne, they in their defence, 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 Towne was surprised, and so were burnt. After which comming too neare the wals, at the Tower of Thebez assaulted by Abimelech he had his braines and head so bruised with the peece of a milstone cast downe 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 dyed: and so every man departed to his place. Thus God rendred the wickednesse of Abimelech, and all the evill of the men of Shechem upon their own heads, Iudges 9. So the Text.

Eightly, 8. 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. yeeres space, Iepthah be­ing made head and Captaine by the Elders and people of Gilead, first argued the case with the King of Ammon touching the unjustnesse of his warre upon them, desiring God to be Iudge betweene them; and then by Gods assistance, smote and subdued the Ammonites and their Cities, Judg. c. 11. And so cast off their yoake.

Ninthly, 9. By the practise of Sampson, who after God had delivered the Isra [...]lities into the hands of the Philistimes who ruled over them forty yeares space, did by Gods extraordinary assistance oft encounter, slay and resist the Philistimes, rescuing the op­pressed Israelites from their vassalage; and at his death slew more of them then in his life, Iudg. c. 13. to 17. which deliverance was afterwards perfected by Samuel, 1 Sam. 7. and approved, nay, wrought by God.

Tenthly, 10. by the Example of David, who being persecuted by fedifragous dissem­bling King Saul his father-in-law (a notable patterne of the inconstancie and invali­ditie of Kings solemnest oathes and Protestations:) who contrary to many solemne vowes and feighned reconciliations, sought unjustly to deprive him of his life; there­upon David retired from the Court, entertained a guard of foure hundred men, and became a Captaine over them, 1 Sam. 22. 2. After which Abiather escaping to him from Nob when the Priests there were slaine by Doeg, upon Saules command, for Davids sake, David used these words to him. Abide thou with me, feare 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 Philistimes beseiging Keilah, David by Gods encouragement, smote them and saved Keilah; intending there to secure himselfe and his men: which Saul hearing of, said; God hath delivered him into my hands; for he is shut in by entring into a [Page 76] Towne which hath gates and barres, whereupon he called all the people together to beseige David and his men: (which he needed not doe, did he or any else beleeve, that they would not, ought not to have made any forcible resistance:) David informed here­of; enquired seriously of God, whether Saul would certainely come downe? 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 fortifie and defend themselves there, if the men of Keilah would have beene faithfull to them, and beleeved they might have resisted Saul with his Forces, certainely he would never have presumed to aske such a question twice together of God himselfe, to receive his resolution therein, neither would God have vouchased an answere thereto: but his double inquirie, and Gods resolution, infallibly demonstrate his in­tention to resist, and the lawfulnes of his defensive resistance, would the Keilites have adhered to him. This the very next words fully cleare, 1 Sam. 23. 13. Then David and his men, about six hundred arose, and departed out of Keilah, and went wheresoever they could goe, and it was told Saul, the David was escaped from Keilah: Gods pre­diction of the Keilites treachery was the onely 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 goe. After which David and his men being but few in number, not able in humane probability, without tempting God, to encounter Sauls great Forces, retired themselves into woods, mountaines, 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 joyne themselves in a body? why retire to strong holds, and places of advantage? why 1 Sam. 23 13. to 29. c. 24. 1. to 20. 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 himselfe, say, even when he spared his life when he was a sleepe, 1 Sam. 26. 10. As the Lord liveth, the Lord shall smite him, or his day shall come to dye, or he shall descend into battell and perish? but that if he had given him battle, he might have defended himselfe against him, though Saul should casually or wilfully perish in the fight? And why was David so importunate to goe 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 unlawfull? This prece­dent of David then, if rightly weighed, is very punctuall to prove the justnesse of a defensive warre, (of which more anon) and no evidence at all against it.

Eleventhly, 11. by the practise of the 10 Tribes: who after their revolt from Rehoboam for giving them an harsh indiscreet answere to their just demands, setting up another King and Kingdome, even by divine approbation; Rehoboam thereupon raising a great Army to fight against and reduce them to his obdience; God himselfe by Semaiah the Prophet, sent this expresse inhibition to Rehoboam and his Army: Thus saith the Lord, ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren returne 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 warres continued be­tweene these Kingdomes 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 Ieroboam and the Israelites falling to Ido­laty, were afterwards (for their Idolatry, not revolt) defeated by Abiah and the men of Iudah, who relied upon God, 2 Chron. 13.

Twelfthly, 12. by the example of the King of Moab and his people, who Rebelling against Iehoram King of Israel, and refusing to pay the annuall Tribute of Lambes and Rammes, formerly rendred to him; hereupon Iehoram, Iehoshaphat, 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 Armour, and upward, and stood in the border to resist them. 2 King. 3 4 to 27. And by the practise of the Ed [...]mites, who revolting from under the hand of Iudah, made a King over themselves: Whereupon Ioram King of Iudah going up with his Forces against them to Zair, they encompassed him, in their owne defence; and though they fled into their Tents, yet they revolted from Iudah till this day, and Libnah too, 2 Kings 8. 20 21. 22.

Thirteenthly, 13. by the example of Samaria, which held out 3. yeeres siege against Shalmazezer King of Assyria, notwithstanding their King Hoshea had by force submitted himselfe and his Kingdome to him, and became his servant. 2 Kings 17. 3. to 10. c. 18. 9. 10.

Fourteenthly, 14. by the practise of godly Hezechiah, who after the Lord was with him and prospered him whethersoever 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 Captaines comming 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 Jerusalems preservation, miraculously slew in the Campe of the King of Assria in one night, an hundred fourescore and five thousand mighty men of valour, Captaines and Leaders; so as he returned with shame of face to his owne Land, 2 King. c. 18. and 19. 2 Chron. c. 32. I say c. 36. and [...]7. An Example doubtlesse law­full beyond exception, ratified by God himselfe and his Angel too.

Fifteenthly, 15. by the examples of King Iehoiakim, and Jehoiakin, 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 successe, by reason of their grosse Idolatries and other sins. (not of this their revolt and defence to regaine their freedomes condemned only in Ze [...]echia, for breach of his 2 Chron. 36. 13. Zech. 17. 10. 18. 19. 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 Iews 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 summe thereof, very succinctly. Antio [...]us Epiphanes conquering Ierusalem, spoyled it and the Temple, set up Heathenish customes and Idolatry in it, subverted Gods worship destroyed the Bookes of Gods 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 Sonnes, moved with a godly zeale, refusing to obey the Kings Com­mand in falling away from the Religion of his Fathers, slew a Iew that sacrificed to an Idoll in his presence, together with the Kings Commissary, who compelled men to Sacrifice, and pulled downe their Idolatrous Altar; which done they fled into the mountaines, whither all the well-affected Iewes repaired to them. Whereupon the [Page 78] Kings Forces hearing the premises pursued them, and warred against them on the Sabbath day; whereupon they out of an over-nice superstition 1 Mac. 2, 32. to 42. least they should pro­phane 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 dye all in our innocencie; heaven and earth shall testifie 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 (marke their speech) if we all doe as our brethren have done, and fight not for our lives, and Lawes against the Heathen, they will now quickly roote 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 doe all as our brethren, that were murthered in their secret places. Whereupon they presently gathered and united their Forces, assaulted their enemies, recovered their Cities, Lawes, Liberties; defended themselves manfully, and fought many battles with good successe against the severall kings who invaded and layd claime to their Country, as you may reade at large in the bookes of Maccabees. All these examples, (most of them mannaged by the most pious, religious persons of those dayes, prescribed and assisted by God himselfe, whose Spirit specially encouraged, strengthned the hands and Spirits of the undertakers of them (as Enchirid. Controvers. c. 9. De Magi­strat. Polit. Osiander well observes,) and therefore cannot be condemned as unjust, without blasphemy and impiety:) in my opinion are a most cleare demonstration of the lawfulnesse of a defensive warre (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 unlaw­full warres; and likewise evidence, that a Royall title gotten forcibly by conquest onely, though continued sundry yeares, is not so valid in point of conscience, but that it may be safely questioned, yea rejected; there being no true lawfull Title of Sove­raignety over any people, but that which originally depends upon their owne 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 personall presence cannot justifie the unjust actions, or protect the persons of those that assist him in any unlawfull action contrary to the Lawes of God, or the Realme, is a truth so evident, that it needes no proofe, it being no part of the kings Royall prerogative or Office, but diametrally repugnant to it, either to doe injury himselfe, or to authorize, or protect others in committing it, as I have else­where proved at large. Therefore it can administer no patronage nor defence 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 farre degenerate and dishonour himselfe, as personally to accompany a packe of theeves who should rob his subjects on the high way, break up their houses in the night, or practise Piracie on the Sea, or commit Rapes or murthers on his people every where; I thinke no man so voyd of Reason, Law, Conscience, but would readily grant, that the Subjects in all these cases might lawfully defend themselves by force against these Robbers, Theeves, Murtherers, notwithstanding the Kings presence or associa­tion with them, whose personall Prerogatives, and immunity from assaults or violence being incommunicable, underivable to any other, and peculiar to himselfe alone, he can [Page 79] transfere no such protection to others who accompany him in their injurious pra­ctises; and that these Acts of theirs are direct fellonie and murther, for which they might be justly apprehended, condemned, executed, though thus countenanced by the Kings owne presence. And if this be truth (as our Law-bookes resolve, and the Scripture to in places forecited) the kings presence can no more deprive the subjects of their necessary just defence against his Popish Forces, assaults, nor justifie their pro­ceedings, or the present unjust offensive warre, then in the former cases, there being the selfe-same reason in both; warres being in truth, but greater and more de­testable Murders, and Robberies, when they are unjust, as Epist. l. 2. Ep. 2. Donar [...] Cyprian, De Ciu. Dei. l. 4. c. 4. Augustine, with O siander; Enchrid. Cont c. 9. De Po­lit. Magist-au 3. p. 203. Ab­ber. Gentillū de Iure Bellit. l. 1. c. 5. Hugo Grotius, de Iu­re Belli l. 2. c. 1 §. 2. others rightly define.

Thirdly, personall unjust assaults and violence even of Kings themselves may in some cases lawfully be resisted by subjects; This Doctor Ferne himselfe acknow­ledgeth, Sect. 2. p. 9. Personall defence is lawfull against the sudden (much more then against the premeditated) and illegall assaults of such Messengers of the King; yea, OF THE PRINCE HIMSELFE THVS FARRE, to ward his blowes, to hold his hands and the like: not to endanger his person, not to returne blowes; no: for though it be naturall to defend a mans selfe, yet the whole common-wealth is concerned in his person: the king therefore himselfe, (much more in his Cavalliers) may thus farre 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 Ionathan and his Armour-bearer, routing the Philistimes whole Ar­my, violated his Father Sauls command, of which he was wholy ignorant in taking a little honey one the end of his sticke in the pursuite; 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 farre from submitting to the Kings pleasure in it, that they presently said to the king: shall Jonathan dye, who hath wrought so great Salvation in Israel? God forbid: As the Lord liveth there shall not one haire of his head fall to the ground, So the people, RESCVED JONATHAN that he dyed not; though he were not onely King Sauls Subject, but Sonne too. In­deede it appeares not in the Text, that Saul offered any violence to Ionathans person, or the people to Sauls: and it may be the peoples 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, seeme to intimate, that Ionathan was in hold to be put to death, and that the people forcibly rescued him, out of the executioners hands. However, certainely their vow and speeches declare, that if Saul himselfe or any other by his commanded had assaulted Ionathan to take away his life, they Josephas Antiq. Judae l. 4. c. 8, p. 104. would have forcibly re­sisted them and preserved his life, though with losse of their owne, beleeving they might lawfully doe it, else they would not have made this resolute vow; nor could they have performed it, had Saul wilfully proceeded, but by a forcible rescue and re­sistance of his personall violence. The other is that of king Vzziah, 2 Chron. 27. 16. to 22. who presumptuously going into the Temple against Gods Law, to burne in­cense on the Altar, Azariah the high Priest, and with him fourescore Priests of the Lord, that were valiant men went in after him, and WITHSTOOD (or resisted) Vzziah the king; and said unto him; It appertaineth not unto thee Vzziah to burne in­cense unto the Lord, but to the Priests the sonnes of Aaron, that are consecrated to burne [Page 80] insence: go out of the Sanctuary for thou hast trespassed, neither shall i [...] be for thine ho­nour from the Lord God. Then Vzziah was wroth, and had a censor in his hand to burne incense, and whiles he was wroth with the Priests, the Leprosie 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 OVT FROM THENCE; yea himselfe hasted also to goe out, because the Lord had smitten him. If then these Priests thus actually resisted King Vzziah in this sinfull 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 bee resisted, repulsed, even in point of conscience, but not slaine; though many kings have lost their lives, upon such occasions: as Philip. de Melanct, Chr. l. 4. D ^r Beards Theatre of Gods Iudge­ment l. 2. c. 29. p. 400. Rodoaldus the 8. king of Lumbardy Anno 659. being taken in the very act of adultery by the adulteresses husband, was slaine by him without delay; and how kings attempting to murther private Subjects unjustly, have themselves beene sometimes wounded, and casually slaine, is so rise in stories, that I shall forbeare examples: concluding this with the words of Num. 16. Rom. 13. 1. to 6. 1 Pet. 2. 13. 14. Iosephus, who expressely writes. That the King of the Israelites (by Gods expresse Law, Deut. 17.) was to doe 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 Lawes; and if he addicted himselfe to these things more than was fitting. HE WAS TO BE RESISTED, least he became more powerfull then was expedient for their affaires.

To these Authorities, I shall onely subjoyne these 5. undeniable arguments to ju­stifie Subjects necessary defensive wars, to be lawful in point of conscience against the persons and Forces of their injuriously invading Soveraignes.

First, 1. it is granted by all as a truth irrefragable, that kings by Force of Armes may justly with safe conscience, resist, repulse, suppresse the unlawfull warlike invasive assaults, the Rebellious armed Insurrections of their Subjects, upon these two grounds, because they are Esay. 14. 19. to 23. Ezech. 44. 15. 16. 17. Zech. 11. 4. 5. [...] King. 25. 2 King. 24. 4. unlawfull by the Edicts of God and man; and because kings in such case, have no other meanes left to preserve their Royall persons, and just authoritie against offensive armed Rebellions, but offensive armes: Therefore Subj [...]cts by the selfe-same grounds, may justly with safe consciences resist, repulse, suppresse the un­just assayling military Forces of their kings in the case fore-stated, though the king himselfe be personally present and assistant, because Estates up­on Credit, 1: Sect. 378. 379. 2 Part. 1. p. 51. to 74. such a war is unlawfull 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 meanes left to preserve their persons, lives, liberties, estates, religion, established government from certaine ruin, but defensive Armes. There is the selfe same reason in both cases, being relatives, therefore the selfesame Law and Conscience in both.

Secondly, 2. It must be admitted without debate; that this office of highest and greatest trust, hath a condition in Law annexed to it (by Littletons owne resolution) to wit, that the King shall well and truely preserve the Realme, and do that which to such Office belongeth; which condition our king by an expresse oath to all his people solemnely taken at their Coronation, with other Articles expressed in their oath (formerly reci­ted) is really bound both in Law and Conscience exactly to performe, being admit­ted [Page 81] and elected king by the peoples suffrages upon solemne promise, Part. 1. p. 51. to observe the same condition to the uttermost of his power, De Princip. l. 1. 2. 3. 6. as I have a Praefat, ad Ruh. de colla­tionibus, p. 583 584. elsewhere cleared. Now it is a cleare case resolved by Gen. 9. 9. 16. c. 17. 7. 13. Ps. 89. 28. 34. Ps. 105. 10. Ps. 111. 9. Esay 55. 3. Esay 33. 20. 21. Iosh. 21. 45. c. 23. 14. Heb 6. 17. 18. Marius Salomonius, confirmed at large by Rebussus by 12. unanswerable reasons, the Authorities of sundry Civill Lawyers, and Canonists quoted by hi [...]; agreed by De Iure Belli. l. 2. c. 12, 13. l. 3 c. 14, 15, 16. Albericus Gentiles and Hugo Grotius, De Iure belli & Pacis l. 2. c. 11. 12, 13, 24. who both largely dispute it; That Kings as well as Subjects are really bound to performe their Covenants, Contracts. Conditions, especially those they make to all their Subjects, and ratifie with an Oath; since God himselfe who is most absolute, is yet mostf firmly oblieged by his Oathes and Covenants made to his despicable vile ereatures, sinfull men; and never violates them in the least degree. If then these conditions and Oathes be firme and obligatory to our kings; if they will obstinately breake them, by violating their Subjects Lawes, Liberties, Properties, and making actuall warre upon them; the condition and Oath too would be meerely voyde, ridiculous, absur'd, an high taking of the Name of God in vaine, yea a plaine delusion of the people, if the whole State or people in their owne defence might not justly take up Armes, to resist their kings and their malignant Forces in these persidious 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 Grotius De Iure Belli l. 2. c. 14. Sect. 3. would be meerely frivilous, if kings had no meanes nor coercive power to cause them to observe these oathes, when they are apparently broken: and many whole kingdomes had been much over seene in point of Policie, or prudence, in prescribing such conditions and oaths unto their kings, had they reserved no lawfull power at all which they might lawfully exercise in point of con­science, to see them really performed, and duely redressed, when notoriously transgres­sed, through wilfulnesse, negligence, or ill pernicious advice.

Thirdly, 3. when any common or publick trust is committed to three or more, though of subordinate and different quality, if the trust be either violated or betrayed, the inferiour 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 Captaine, Leutenant, and common Souldiers: or of a ship to the Master, Captaine, and ordinary Mariners: If the Captaine or Master will betray the City, Castle, or ship to the enemie or Pirates, or dismantle the City wals and fortifications to expose it unto danger, or will wil­fully run the ship against a rocke to split, wrecke it, and indanger all their lives, freedomes, contrary to the trust reposed in them; or fire or blow up the City, Fort, ship: not onely the Leiutenant, Masters Mate, and other inferiour Officers, though subject to their commands, but even the Common Souldiers and Marriners may with­stand and forcibly resist them, and are bound in Conscience so to doe, 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 cleare, so common in daily experience that no man doubts it: The care and safety of our Realme by the originall politicke constitution of it, alwayes hath beene and now is, committed joyntly to the king, the Lords, and Commons in Parliament, by the una­nimous consent of the whole kingdome. The king the supreame member of it, con­trary to the trust and duty reposed in him, through the advise of evill Councellors wilfully betrayes the trust and safety of this great City and ship of the Republicke; invades the inferiour Commanders, Souldiours, Citizens, with an Army: assaults, wounds, slayes, spoyles, plunders, sackes, imprisons his fellow trustees, Souldiers, [Page 82] Marriners, Citizens, undermines the walls, fires the City, ship, delivers it up to theeves, Pyrates, murtherers, as a common prey, and wilfully runnes this ship upon a rocke of ruin. If the Lords and Commons joyntly intrusted with him, should not in this case by force of Armes resist him, and his unnaturall instruments, (there being no other meanes else of safety left them) they should sinfully and wilfully betray their trust, and be so farre from keeping a good Christian Conscience in not resisting by force, that they should highly sinne against Conscience, against their trust and du­ty, against their naturall Country, yea and their very Allegiance to the king himselfe, by encouraging him in, and consenting unto these proceedings, which would make him not to be a king, but Tyrant, and destroy him as a king, in the spoyle and ruine of his Kingdome, thereby endangered to be consumed) and tempt God himself: as Pope Ni­cholas, and Caus. 23. quest. 8. Suri. Concil. Tom. 3 p. 520. Gratian resolve in these words. If there be no necessity we ought at all times to abstaine from warres, but if inevitable necessity urge us, we ought not to abstaine from warres, and warlike preparations for the defence of our selves, of our Country, and paternall Lawes, no not in Lent, least man should seeme to tempt God, if when he hath meanes, he provide not for his owne and others safety, and prevents not the Detriments of holy religion.

Fourthly, Cajetan. 2 [...]. [...]ae. qu. 4. ar. 1. Ambrose, Offic. l. 1. c. 36 Sum­ma: Angelica, Rosella & Sylvester, Tit. Bellum, and the Clossers on Gratian. Causa. 23. qu. 3. those injuries which Allies and other neighbour States or Princes may with good Conscience repulse with Armes from Subjects wrongfully oppressed, in­vaded tyrannically by their Soveraignes, or their wicked Instruments, at, or without the Subjects intreaty, when they are unable to relieve themselves: no doubt the Sub­jects themselves, if able, may with better reason, and as good Conscience resist and repell; because every man is Lev. 19. 18. Mat. 22. 39. Rom 9. 3. c. 14. 4. 1 Cor. 9. 27. Phil. 2. 12. 1 Tim. 5. 8 nearer, and more oblieged to defend and preserve him­selfe and those of his owne Nation, Religion, blood, then strangers are, and may with lesse publick danger, inconvenience, and more speede effect it, then Forraigners: but Al­lies and Forraigne Neighbour States and Princes, as Dist. 23. qu. 3. to 8. Gratian (o [...]t of the 5. Councell of Carthage; Augustine, Ambrose, Hierom, Anastatius, Calistus and other) De Jure Bell. l. 1. c. 14. 15. 16. Albe­ricus Gentilis, Common­weale. l. 2. c. 5. l. 5. c. 6. Sect. 2. l. 3. c. 25. Sect. 4. 5. 6. 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 Soveraignes; and that either at, and in some cases without the Subjects intreaty: Which they prove by Moses his slaying the AEgyptian that oppres­sed the Hebrew. Exod. 2. 11. to 15. by Joshua his ayding of the Gibeonites against the five Kings that made war against them, Josh. 10. by the example of Jehoshaphat, 1 Kin. 22. 2 Kings 3. Of the chiefe. Captaines securing Paul with a gard of Souldiers a­gainst the Iews who had vowed his death, Acts 23. by Abrahams rescuing Lot, Gen. 14. by sundry ancie [...]t and late Examples in story. Therfore Subjects themselves no doubt if able, may with good reason and conscience, lawfully resist, and repell their Princes in­vading Forces, though accompanied, assisted with his personall presence.

Fifthly, It is yeelded by all Divines, Lawyers, Canonists, Schoolemen; as Caus. 23. qu. 1. 2. Gratian, 1a. 2ae. qu. [...] art. 10. & qu. 64. ar. 7. dub. 4. Ban [...]es, l. 4. disp. 5. art. 10. l. 5 qu. 1. art. 8. Seto, lib. 21. c. 9. du. 8. Lessius, l. 1. Contr Illust. 18. Vasquius, p. 3. Covaruvi [...]s, n 2. 2. 2 ae. qu. 64 art. [...] Aquinas, Verbo Bel­lum, par. [...] n. 3. & p. 2. & Homicidium. 3. q. 4. Sylvester, ad l. ut vim. Di de Just. & Iure. Bartolus, In rep. l. 1. & unde vi. Baldus, l. 11. c. 3. n. 147. Navarre, De Iure Bel. l. 1. c. 13. 14. Albericus Gentilis, De Jure Bel. l. 2. c. [...] Grotius and others, that private men by the Law of God, and nature, may in defence of their lives, chastities, principall mem­bers, and estates, lawfully resist all those who forcibly assault them, to deprive them thereof; yea and slay them to, unlesse they be publicke persons of eminencie, by whose slaughter the Commonweale should sustaine much prejudice, whose lives in such [Page 83] cases must not be willingly hazzarded, though their violence be resisted: which is cleerely prooved by Iudges 11. 8. 15. to 18. 1 Sam. 17. 41. to 53. Deut. 22. 26. 27. since therefore all these are apparently indangered by an invasive warre and Army, more then by any private assaults; and no ayde, no assistance or protection against the losse of life, chastitie, estate, and other violences, injuries which accompany wars can be expected from the Lawes, or Prince himself (the fountaine of this injustice,) or legall punishments inflicted on the malefactors, whose armed power being above the reach of common justice, and injuries countenanced, abetted, authorised by the Soveraine who should avenge and punish them, every subject in particular, and the whole state in Parliament assembled in generall, may and ought in point of conscience joynt­ly and severally to defend themselves, their neighbours, brethren, but especially their native Countrey, Kingdome, whose generall safety is to be preferred before the lives of any particular persons, how great or considerable soever, which may be casually hazarded by their owne wilfulnesse, though not purposely endangered or cut off in the defensive incounter, by those who make resistance. And if (according to 2 2. Ar. 6. 7. q 2. Card. qu. 33. li 1. Petr. Nau. l. 11. Ca 3. n. 147. Gro­tius. de Iure Belli. l. 2. c. 1. Sect. 4. Cajetan and other Schoolemen,) Innocents which onely casually hinder ones flight from a mortall enemie may be lawfully with good conscience slaine by the party pursued, in case where he cannot else possibly escape the losse of his owne life, because every mans owne life is dearer to him then anothers, which he here takes away onely to pre­serve his owne life, without any malicious murtherous intent, though others doubt of this case: or if innocent persons set perforce in the front of unjust assailants (as by the Cavalleires at Brainford and elsewhere,) to prevent defence, and wrong others with more securitie and lesse resistance, may casually be slain, (though not intentionally) by the defensive party (as I thinke they may) for prevention of greater danger and the publicke safety; See the Re­lation of Brainford. then certainely those of publicke place and Note; who wilfully and unnaturally set themselves to ruine their Country, Liberty, Religion, Innocent brethren (who onely act the defensive part,) and voluntarily intrude themselves into danger, may questionlesse with safe conscience be resisted, repulsed: in which if they casually chance to lose their lives without any malice or ill intention in the defendants, it being onely through their owne default, such a casuall accident when it happens, or the remote possibility of it in the combate before it begins, cannot make the resistance either unjust or unlawfull in point of conscience; for then such a possibility of danger to a publike person should make all resistance unlawfull, deprive the Republicke wholly of this onely remedy against tyrannicall violence, and expose the whole com­mon-weale to ruine, whose weale and safety, is to be preferred before the life or safety of any one member of it whatsoever.

Having thus at large evinced the lawfulnesse of Subjects necessary forcible resistance, & defensive wars against the unjust offensive Forces of their Soveraignes; I shall in the next place answere the principall arguments made against it, some whereof (for ought I finde) are yet unanswered.

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

The first out of the Old Testament, Object. 1. is that of Numb. 16. Dr. Ferne Sect. 2. p. [...]0. Korah, Dathan, and Abiram for their insurrection against that very divine Authority which God him­selfe had delegated to Moses and Aaron, without any injury or injustice at all once [Page 84] offered to them or any assault upon them. Ergo (marke the Non-sence of this argu­mentation) no Subjects may lawfully take up meere necessary defensive Armes in any case to resist the bloody Tyrannie, Oppression, and outrages of wicked Princes, or their Cavalleires, when they make warre upon them to destroy or enslave them.

An Argument much like this in substance. Answ. No man ought to rise up against an ho­nest Officer or Captaine in the due execution of his Office, when he offers him no in­jury at all. Therefore he ought not in conscience to resist him when he turnes a theefe or murtherer, and felloniously assaults him, to rob him of his purse, or cut his throate. Or, private men must not causelesly mutinie against a lawfull Magistrate for doing justice and performing his duty: Ergo the whole Kingdome in Parliament may not in Conscience resist the Kings Captaines and Cavalleeres, when they most unnaturally and impiously assault them to take away their Lives, Liberties, Priviledges, Estates, Religion, oppose and resist justice, and bring the whole Kingdome to ut­ter desolation. The very recitall of this argument is an ample satisfactory refutation of it, with this addition. These seditious Levites Rebelled against Moses and Aaron, onely because God himselfe had restrained them from medling with the Priests Office which they would contemptuously usurpe, and therefore were most severely puni­shed by God himself, against whose expresse Ordinance they Rebelled: Ergo, the Par­liament and Kingdome may in no case whatsoever, though the King be bent to subvert Gods Ordinances, Religion, Lawes, Liberties, make the least resistance against the king or his invading forces, under paine of Rebellion, High Treason, and eternall condemnation, This is Doctor Fernes and some others, Bedlam Logicke, & Divinity.

The next is this, Object. 2. Thou shalt not revile the Gods, nor curse the Ruler of thy people, Ex. 22. 28. An appeale to thy Con­science. p. 3. 4. 5. Eccl. 10. 20. Curse not the King no not in thy thought, and curse not the rich in thy bed-Chamber; ( which is well explained by Prov. 17. 26. It is not good to strike Princes for equitie.) Ergo it is unlawfull for the Subjects to defend themselves against the Kings Popish depopulating Cavaleers.

I answer, Answ. the first text pertaines properly to Judges and other sorts of Rulers, not to Kings, not then in being among the Israelites: the second, to rich men as well as Kings. They may as well argue then from these texts: that no Iudges nor 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, Lawes, Liberties: as that the King and his Souldiers joynt­ly or severally considered, may not be resisted: yea, these acute disputants may argue further by this new kinde of Logicke: Christians are expresly prohibited to curse or re­vile any man whatsoever, under paine of damnation, Rom. 12. 14. Mat. 5. 44. Levit. 19 14. Numb. 23. 7. 8. 2 Sam. 16. 9. Levit. 20. 9. c. 24 P 1. 14. 23. Levit. 20. 9. Prov. 20. 20. 1 Cor. 6. 10 1 Cor. 4. 12. 1 Pet. 2. 23. Jude 9. Ergo, we ought to resist no man whatsoever, (no not a theefe that would rob us, cut-throate Cavaleers that would murther us, lechers that would ravish us) under paine of damnation. What pious profitable Doctrine, thinke you, is this: All cursings and railings are simply unlawfull in themselves: all resistance is not so, especially that necessary we now discourse of, against unlawfull violence to ruine Church and State. To argue therefore, all resistance is simply unlawfull, because cursing and reviling (of a different nature) are so, is ill Logicke, and worse Divinity. If the objectors will limit their resistance, (to make the Argument sensible,) and propose it thus: All cursing and re­viling [Page 85] of Kings and Rulers for executing justice impartially (for so is the chiefe in­tendment of the place objected, delinquents being apt to clamour against those who justly censure them) is unlawfull; Ergo the forcible resisting of them in the execution of justice and their lawfull authority is unlawfull: the sequell I shall grant, but the Argument will be wholy impertinent, which I leave to the Objectors to refine.

The third Argument is this: Object. 3. That which peculiarly belongs to God, no man without his speciall authority ought to meddle with: An Appeale to thy Con­science. p. 2. But taking up Armes peculiarly belongeth to he Lord. Deut 32. 35. Where the Lord saith, vengeance is mine: especially the sword, which of all temporall vengeance is the greatest.

The Objector puts no Ergo, Answ. or conclusion to it, because it concludes nothing at all to purpose, but onely this. Ergo, The King and Cavalleeres must lay downe their Armes and swords, because God never gave them any speciall commission to take them up. Or, Ergo, no man but God must weare a sword, at least of revenge; and [...]hether the kings and Cavalleers Offensive, or the Parliaments meere Defensive sword, be the sword of vengeance and malice, let the world determine, to the Obje­ctors shame.

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

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

The second, this: The king may lawfully do whatsoever pleaseth him Ergo, neither are He, or his Forces to be resisted. To which I answer, that this verse relates onely unto God, the next antecedent; who onely doth and may doe what he pleaseth, and that both in heaven and earth, Psal. 135. 6. Psal. 115. 3 Esay 46. 10. not to Kings who neither may nor can doe what they please in either, being bound both by the Laws of God, man, and their Coronation Oathes (perchance the oath of God here meant, rather then that of supremacie or alleigance) to doe Sam. 23. 3. Esay 32. 1. c. 16. 5. c. 9. 7. 2 Chron. 9. 8. onely what is lawfull and just, not what themselves shall please. But admit it meant of Kings, not God: First the text saith not, that a king may lawfully doe what he pleaseth: but he doth whatsoever pleaseth him: Solom [...]n himselfe 1 King. c. 11. & 12. 2 Chr. c 9. & 10. & 11. Neh. 13. 26. committed idolatry, built Temples for Idolatrous worship, served his idolatrous wives Gods, married with many idolatrous wives, greivously oppressed his people, &c. for which God threatned to rent the kingdome from him­self, as he did the ten Tribes from his son, for those sinnes of his: 2 Sam. c. 11. & 12. & 34. David committed adultery, and wilfully numbred the people; and what King Jeroboam, Manasseh, [Page 86] Ahab, other wicked Kings have done, out of the pleasure and freedome of their lawlesse wills, to the infinite dishonour of God, the ruine of themselves, their poste­rities, Kingdomes, is sufficiently apparent in In the bookes of Kings, Chro­nicles, Ieremi­ah, and Da­niel. Scripture; was all therefore just, lawfull, unblameable, because they did herein whatsoever they pleased, not what was pleasing to God? If not, as all must grant: then your foundation failes; that Kings may lawfully doe whatsoever they will; and Solomons words must be taken all toge­ther not by fragments; and these latter words coupled with the next preceeding; Stand not in an evill matter: and then Pauls words will well interpret his, Rom. 13. 4. But if thou doe that which is evill be afraid, for he beareth not the sword in vaine, for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon them that doe evill. So that the genuine sence of the place is, and must be this. Stand not in an evill matter, for the king path an absolute power to doe whatsoever he pleaseth, in way of justice to pu­nish thee, if thou continue obstinate in thy evill courses; to pardon thee, if thou con­fesse, submit, and crave pardon for them. Ergo, the king and his Cavalleeres have an absolute power to murther, plunder, destroy his Subjects, subvert Religion, and he and his Forces must not herein be resisted, is an ill consequent from such good premises.

The third is this: Where the word of a King is, there is power, See Cassa­naeus. Catal. Gloriae Mun­di, pars 5. con­sid. 24. sect. 62. p. 22. 2. and who may say unto him what dost thou? (that is, expostulate with, censure him for doing justly, as Iob 34. 17. 18. 19. expound it,) Ergo the king or his Forces may not be resisted in any case: they might rather conclude. Therefore neither Kingdome nor Parliament, nor any Subject or person whatsoever ought to demand of the king, to what end, or why he hath raised Forces and Armed Papists against the Parliament, and Protestant Religion? These Court-Doctors might as truely conclude from hence: If the king should com­mand us to say Masse in his Chappell, or our Parishes, to adorne Images, to turne pro­fessed Masse-priests, &c. to vent any Erronious Popish Doctrines; to pervert the Scriptures to support Tyrannie and lawlesse cruelty: we must and will (as some of us doe) cheerefully obey; for where the word of a King is, there is power, and we may not say unto him, what dost thou? If a King should violently ravish matrons, defloure virgins; unnatu­rally abuse youth, cut all his Subjects throates, fire their houses, sacke their Cities, subvert their li­berties; and (as De Fontif. Rom. l. 4. Bellarmine puts the case of the Popes absolute irresistible authority) send millions of soules to hell; yet no man under paine of damnation, may or ought to demande of him, Domine cur ita facis? Sir, what doe you? But was this the holy Ghosts meaning thinke you, in this place? If so, then 2 Sam. 12. 7. &c. Nathan was much to blame for reprehending king Davids Adultery. 2 Chro. 27. 17. 18. 19. 20. Azariah and the 40. Priests who withstood King Vzziah when he would have offered incense, on the incense Altar, and thrust him out of the Temple, telling him, it pertaineth not to thee Vzziah, to burne incense to the Lord, &c. Were no lesse then Traytors. John Baptist was much over-seene to tell King Herod, It is not law­full for thee to have thy brothers wife. The Prophet who sharpely reprehended Amaziah for his Ido­latry and new altar, 2 Chron 25. 15. 16. was justly checked by the king. Eliiah was to be rebuked, for telling Ahab so plainely of his faults, 1 King 18. 17. 18. 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. 2 King. 1. 3. 4. 16. 9. The meaning therefore of this Text, so much mistaken, (unlesse we will censure all these Prophets, and have Kings not onely irresistible but irreprehensible for their wickednesse) is onely this: No man may presume to question the kings just actions, warranted by his lawfull royall pow­er: (this text being parallel with Rom. 13. 1. 2. 3. 4.) What then? Ergo, None must question or resist his, or his Cavalleers unjust violence and proceedings, (not the Parliament the supremest Iudicature and Soveraigne Power in the Kingdome) is a ridiculous con­sequence: yet this is all this Text doth contribute to their present dying bad cause.

The 5. Object. 5. is that usually objected Text of An Appeal to thy Con­science, p. 4. c. Answer of the Vindication of Ps. 105. 14, 15 and the Revin­dication printed at Cambridge, 1643. Psal. 105. 14, 15. Touch not mine an­nointed. Ergo the King and his Cavaleers must not be so much as touched nor resisted, I wonder they did not as well argue, Ergo none must henceforth kisse his Majesties hand (since it cannot be done without touching him,) neither must his Barber trim him, nor his Bedchamber-men attire him, for feare of high Treason in touching him: And the Cavaleers must not henceforth be arrested for their debts, apprehended for their robberies and murthers; neither must the Chyrurgion dresse their wounds, or pock-soars, or otherwise touch them, (so dangerous is it to touch them, not out of fear of infection, but) for fear of transgressing this sacred Text, scarce meant of such unhal­lowed God-dammee [...]. Such conclusions had been more literall and genuine then the first.

But to answer this long since exploded triviall Objection, Answ. not named by Dr Ferne, though revived by others since him. I say first, that this Text concernes not kings at all, but the true anoynted Saints of God their Subjects, whom kings have been alwayes apt to oppresse and persecute, witnesse Psal. 2. 2. &c. Act. 4. 26. 27. Act. 12. 1, 2, 3 with all sacred and Ecclesiasticall Histories, ancient or moderne. This is most appa­rent; first, because these words were spoken by God to Kings themselves, as the Text is expresse, Psal 105 14, 15. 1 Chron. 16. 20, 21. He suffered no man to do them wrong, but reproved even KINGS for their sakes, saying, (even to king themselves, namely to king Pharaoh, an king 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, Iacob, their wives and families, as it is evident by Verse 6. the whole series of the Psalme, which is Historicall; the forecited Texts of Genesis to which the words relate, the punctuall confession of Augustine, and all other Expositors on this Psalm; Now neither they, nor their wives, nor their children clearly, were actuall, much lesse anointed Kings; For first, they lived long before the government of kings was erected among the Israelites, of whom 1 Sam. 8. & 9. & 10. see 1 Chron. 1. 43. 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 onely of their own small families, and that under forraign Kings; therfore doubtlesse 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, unlesse you will have kingdoms consisting onely 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 no where calls them kings, much lesse the Text, which terms them ex­presly 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 See Zeph. 2. 8. Gen. 20. 6. Iob 1. 11. c. 2. 5. c. 19. c. 5. 19. c. 12. 14. Gen. 26. 11. 29. Ier. 12. 14. 1 Ioh. 5. 18. them harm; For in a common sence, no doubt, they Matth. 8. 3. 15. c. 17 7. Mar. 6. 56. Luk. 8. 45, 46, 47 might be touched without offence to God or them, by way of imbracement, assistance, and the like [Page 90] Sixtly, Though there were kings in Abrahams dayes or before, as is evident by Gen. 14. 1, 2, &c. yet there were no anointed kings, nor were kings ever called Gods anoin­ted till Sauls dayes, who was the first anointed King I read of, 1 Sam. 10. 1. and the first king ever stiled, The Lords 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 onely of those Saints of God, who were metap [...]rically and spiritually anointed, having the gifts and graces of Gods Spirit, Psal. 28. 8, 9. Hab. 3. 13. 2. Cor. 1. 21. 1 Iohn 2. 27. Eze. 16. 9. Isay 20. 27. This Text then being not meant of kings which are actually, but of Christians onely spiritualy anointed, in regard of which anointing (as I have The Vindi­cation and Re­vindication of Psal. 105. 14, 15 elsewhere largely ma­nifested) they are in Scripture, not onely stiled Christians (which in plain English is annoynted) 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 for ever) 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. Iam. 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 Gods spiritually anointed Saints and servants to do them harm; Ergo, if Kings do violently and unjustly make warre upon them, not onely to harm, but plunder, murther, destroy them utterly, extirpate that Religion they professe 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 enjoyned Kings, Not to touch, or do them harm; if Kings will wilfully 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 iniury which God himself prohibits; else they should be accessories to their kings iniustice, and authors of their own wrongs, according to these received Maximes; Gratian. causa. 23. qu. 3, 4, 5, 6. Where many Fathers are cited, to this purpose. 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 definit obviare cum potest, consentit: used by Ambrose, Hierome, 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 erronious sence safely argue thence, That if subiects take up Arme against their Princes, contrary to this Text, their Princes may by vertue of this pre­cept, iustly resist them with force, and repulse their iniuries; then by the true genuine sence thereof (being meant of Subiects, Saints, not Kings) if Kings will violently as­sault and make war upon Saints, their Subiects, 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 authoritie of this Text, by our Opposites own argumentation.

Thirdly, admit this Scripture meant of Kings, yet what strength is there in it to pri­viledge [Page 91] them from iust necessary resistance? If any, it must rest in the word annointed; but this will afford kings no such corporall priviledges as many fancie, neither from lawfull resistance, nor deposition, nor sentence of death it self, which I shall undenia­bly evidence to refute a commonly received errour: For, first, it is apparent, that the anointed here meant, are such onely who are spiritually annointed, either with the ex­ternall profession and ceremonies of Gods true religion, or with the internall graces of the Spirit; for neither Abraham, Isaac, Iacob, nor their families (nor any kings or Priests in their dayes) for ought we finde, were corporally annointed. Besides, the annointing here intended, is that which is common to Exod. 30. 30. c. 40. 13, 15. Levit. 4. 3. 16. 1 King. 19. 16. Priests and Prophets (as Touch not mine annointed, 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 subiects as well as kings, and cannot secure any subiects, who in the genu­inesence of the Text, are Gods annointed, from iust resistance, corporall violence, legall censures, or death, cannot in or of it self alone secure kings from any of these, no fur­ther then it secures subiects: for the annointing being the same in both, must have the self-same operation and immunities in both. But this anointing in subiects can neither exempt their persons from necessary iust resistance, if they unlawfully assault or war upon their Superiours, equalls, inferiours; nor free them from arrests, imprison­ments, arraignments, deprivations, or capitall censures, if they offend and demerit them, as we all know by Eccles. 9 2. c. 8. 14. Ezec [...]. 18. 24, 26. Ich. 16. 2. Scripture and experience: Therefore it can transfer no such corporall immunities or exemptions from all or any of these, to kings; but onely, exempt them from unlawfull 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 speciall Prerogative to Kings, but onely such as are common to all Sub­iects, as they are Christians. Secondly, admit it be mean [...] of an actuall externall an­oynting, yet that of it self affords Kings no greater priviledge then the inward uncti­on, of which it is a type, neither can it priviledge them from just resistance, or just corporall censures of all sorts. First, it cannot priviledge them from the iust assaults, invasions, resistance, corporall punishments of other forraign kings, Princes, States, Subiects not subordinate to them, who upon any iust cause or quarrell may lawfully resist, assault, wound, apprehend, imprison, slay, depose, iudge, censure forraigne kings, even to death; as is apparent by Psal. 136. 19, 20. Num. 21. 2 [...] 33, 34, 35. S [...]hon King of the Amorites, and Og the king of Bashan, slain, the King of Iosh. 8. 29. Ai hanged by Ioshua, the Iosh. 10. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. five kings of Canaan that besieged Gibeon, on whose ne-ks Ioshua 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 Iosh. 10. 42. c. 11. & 12. 7. to 24. kings of Canaan, to the num­ber of thirty one in all; by king Iudg, 1, 26, to 76. Adonibezek, Iudg, 3, to [...]6 Eglon, 1 Sam. 15, 32, 33. Agag, with other Heathen Kings, imprisoned, stabbed, hewen in pieces by the Israelites. If any obiect, These kings were not actually annoynted, which they cannot prove, since Isay, 45, 10 Cyrus an Heathen King, is stiled Gods annoynted; no doubt Saul was an annoynt­ed 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. 2 Chro. 35. Iosiah an annoynted good King, was slain by Pharaoh Necho King of Egypt, whom he rashly encountred; 1 King. 22, 34, 35. King Ahab was slain by an Archer of the King of Assyria, 2 King 9, [...] 27. King Ioram and Ahaziah were both slain by Iehu, by Gods command; 2 Chr. 31. 10. 6, 7. Iehoaaz was deposed by the King of Egypt, 2 Ki. 2 [...], 6, 7 Iehoiakim and Iehoiakin both deposed, fettered and kept prisoners by the King of Ba­bylon; [Page 92] bylone; who also ^y app [...]eherded d [...]posed, judicially condemned King Zedechiah, put out his eyes, and sent him prisoner to B [...]hylon bound with fetters of brasse. So 2 Chron, 33, 11, 1 [...]. Ma­nasses was deposed, bound with fetters of brasse, and carryed captive by the Captaines of the King of Assyria. 2 King 14, 33. Amaziah King of Iudah was taken prisoner by Iehoash King of Israel. Infi [...]ite are the presidents in stories, where kings of one Nation in just warrs, 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 priviledge to them at all in respect of forraigners, in cases of hostility, to whom they are no Soveraigns, no more then to any of their Subjects. Whereas if this royall annointing did make their persons absolutly sacred and inviolable, no forraign Princes or Subjects could justly apprehend, im­prison, smite, wound, slay, depose, or execute them. Secondly, Kings who are subor­ordinate See M. Sel­dens Titles of Honour l. [...] 3, s [...]ct 1, 2, Bodin Communwal. v. 3, l. 2, c. 5. Ioseph De Bello Indaico, l. 1. c 10. 15. Homagers and Subjects to other Kings or Emperours, though annointed, 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 for­raign Histories; and is generally confessed by the learned. Thirdly, the Roman, Greek and German Experours though annointed, the ancient Kings of France, Spain, Arragon, Britain, Hungary, Poland, Denmarke, 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 owne Senates, Parliaments, Diets, States, for their oppression, mal-administration, ty­ranny, and that justly, as Commonw. l. 2, c 5. Bodin, De Iure Belli, l. 1. c. 3, sect. 11. 16. Grotius, with others affirm, notwithstanding any pretence that they were annointed Soveraigns. Fourthly, Popes, Bishops and Priests anciently were, and at this present in the Romish Churches are actually annointed as well as Kings; and we know the In their ti­tles and cont. o­vdrsies de Im­munitate Cleri­ [...]erum, Bishop Latimers [...]er­mon at Stam­ford, f. 67, b. Popish Clergy and Canonists have frequently alledged this Text, Touch not mine annointed and doe my Prophets no harme, in Coun­cels, Decretalls and solem [...] debates in Parliament, to prove their exemption from the arrests, judgements, capitall cens [...]res and proceedings of Kings and secular Iudges for any crimes whatsoever, because (forsooth) they were Gods annointed, 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 colour of this Text they excee­dingly deluded the world in this particular for [...]undreds of yeeres. But in the seventh yeer of Hen. the 8. in Keilwayes Resorts, f. 181. Dr. Standish his case debated before a Committee of both Hou­ses of Parliament, and all the Iudges 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 See par. r. p. 88. & Fox Act & Monuments. Fopes, Bishops, and Clergy-men in all Kingdomes, 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 1 King. 2, 26, 27. 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 doe ill, or not to suffer all kinds of corporall, capitall punishments for their misde­meanors. If this actuall annointing then, cannot lawfully exempt or secure Priests and Prelates persons, nor the Pope himselfe from the premises, how then can it justly priviledge the persons of Kings? Fifthly, among the Papists all infants, either in their [Page 93] baptisme, or confirmation are actually annointed with their consecrated See Claudi­us E [...]sencaeus Dig. s. in. P [...]o [...]. [...]pist. ad Tim. d. c. rismatis usu p. 261, &c. Chrisme, and with Espencaeus Ibid. See ho­mas it aldensis, Bellarmine and others, De Sa­cramento extre­mae u [...]ctiours, and all School­men and Cano­nists, De Sacra­me, torum Nu­mero & Extr­unct. extream unction to boot at last cast, which they make Cat. log Glo­riae Mu [...]di, par. 5. Consid. 35. p. 40. Alber. de Re [...] Super G. of Rubr. F. d [...]sta., ho. a Sacrament, and so a thing of more divine soveraign Nature then the very annointing of Kings at their inauguration, which they repute no Sacrament, as being no where commanded by God: But neither of these actuall unctions, exempt all or any of those annointed with it from resistance, or any corporall punishments, or just censures of any king; there­fore the very annointing of Kings cannot doe it. Sixthly, the Ceremony of annoint­ing kings, as Cassanaens Ibid. & Consid. 19. Cassanaeus with others write, is peculiar onely to the German Emperor, the King of Ierusalem, the King of France, the King of England, and the King of Sicily; but to no other kings else, who are neither annointed nor crowned, as he affirmes; so that it cannot give any priviledge at all to any but onely to these 4. not other kings, who are not anointed Now seeing only hese 4. kings are actually anointed, yea lawfull Kings and their persons sacred, even before they are annointed or crowned, yea other kings persons (as of Spain, Hungary, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, &c.) who are not an­nointed, are as sacred, as exempt from danger, as those who are enoyled; And seeing the annointing of kings is at this day a meer arbitrary humane Ceremony, not injoyned by divi [...]e authority, nor common to all Kings, who are Cook 7. [...]e­port. Calvins Cas [...]c f. 11. Phi­loch. Arch. De Somnio Ver [...], c. 171. Kings before their Coronations, it is most certain and infallible, that this enoyling in and of it selfe derives no personall Prerogatives or Immunities at all to kings, much lesse an absolute exemption from all actuall resistance in cases of unjust invasions on their Subjects, or from the censures of their Parliaments for publike distructive exorbitances, as most have hitherto blindly beleeved.

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 Lords Annointed, to stretch forth my hand against him seeing he is the Lords Annointed. I will not put forth my hand against my Lord, for he he is the Lords annointed. And David said to Abishai, Destroy him not, for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Annointed, and he guiltlesse? The Lord forbid that I should stretch forth his hand against the Lords Annointed. The Lord delivered thee into my hand to day, but I would not stretch forth mine hand against the Lords Annointed. How wa [...] thou not afraid to siretch forth thy hand against the Lords Annointed? Thy blood shall be upon thy head, for thy mouth hath testified that thou hast slain the Lords Annointed. Which severall Texts seem at first sight to insinuate, that Sauls very externall annointing was that which did secure his person from assauls and violence; and that it is unlawfull even by way of defence, forcibly with Armes to re­sist a persecuting unjustly invading king, because he is annointed.

But these Texts, if duly pondered, will warrant neither of these conclusions. First then, Object. S. An [...]sw. I answer, that Sauls bare annointing, considered as an externall Ceremony to declare him a lawfull King, did not, could not adde any immunity to his person against Davids, or any other Subjects just violent resistance, as the premised reasons manifest; but it was onely his royall Soveraign Office conferred on him by God and the people, to which his externall annointing by Samuel was but a prepa­ration That which made Saul, with other his successours, a king, was not his bare annointing. For 1 Sam. 10. 1, 2. 24. Saul himselfe was annointed by Samuel, before he was made and chosen King, not when he was made King. So 1 Sam. 16. 1, to 14 David, [...] king, 19. [...], 16. Hazael, 1 king. 19. 16. 2 king 9. 1. to 3. selu, with others, were annointed before they were actuall Kings, and many of their Successors by [Page 94] descent, were reall kings before they were annointed; some of them being not an­nointed at all for ought we read: therefore their unction made them not kings, since neither simply necessary, nor essentiall to their being kings. Nor did Sauls 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 annointed, or had conti­nued king for some yeeres 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 annointed; and of hereditary kings before their Coronations, till they are annointed, should not be sacred, nor exempt from violence; which is both false and perillous to affirm; but it was his Soveraign Royall Authority over David (then his Son-in-law, Servant, Subject) which restrained him from offering violence to his per­son. Soul then being thus priviledged, not because he was annointed, but because he was an annointed king, and that not quatenus Annointed, but quatenus King; the true sense and genuine interpretation of these Texts must be, That Sauls person was sa­cred, exempt from his Subjects violence, not because he was annointed, as if that on­ly did priviledge him; but because he was a lawfull king 1 Sa. 15, 16, 17. c. 10. 1, 2, 4. appointed by the Lord himselfe, the 1 Sam. 12, 13. c. 15. 13. c. 16 1, 1 Chro. 28. Lords annointed, being but a periphrasis, or forme of speech, wherein the Geremony of annointing, is used for the Regality, or kingly power it selfe, declared not conferred by annointing, and in plain words without any figure, it is put for, the Lords King, that is, a King appointed by the Lord; in which sence God calls Christ Psal 2. 6. Psal. 18. 50. my King; and David stiles himselfe ^x Gods King. Sauls Royall Authority without his annointing, not his annointing, predestinating him to his Authority be­ing the ground of this his immunity from Davids violence. Secondly, 1 Sam. 10. 1, 2, 24. Saul was annointed some space before he was made King, and 1 Sam. 16. 1. 10 14. David many yeere before hee came to the Crowne: 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 defence? If not, then one Sub­ject may not repulse the unjust violence of another in an elective kingdome, if by pos­sibility he may after wards be chosen king, though for the present he be neither actually king nor Magistrate, but a Shepheard, 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 Sauls annointing but onely his Royall 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 Davids example prove, is but this. That Subjects ought not wilfully or purposely to murder or offer violence to the persons of their kings; especially in cold blood when they doe not actually assault them. Ergo they may not resist, repulse their personall actuall assaults, nor oppose their cut-throat Cavaleers when they make an unjust warre against them. Which Argument is a meer Non sequitur.

For 1. Davids example extends only to Sauls own person, not to his Souldiers, who were neither kings, nor Gods Annointed; and whom David no doubt would have resisted and slain too had they assaulted him, though he spared Saul: as Sect. 2, p. 8. Dr. Fern himselfe insinuates in these words; Davids Guard that he had about him, was onely to secure his person against the cut-throats of Saul, if sent to take away his life, &c. He was [Page 95] annoynted 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 doubtlesse have with a safe conscience resisted, Sect, repulsed Sauls cut-throat Soul­diers, 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 wilfully 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 defence, without murder or manslaughter, unlesse I could not otherwise preserve my own life by slight or resistance. Sect, 2, p. [...]. Doctor Ferne grants, that a Subject may in his own private defence, lawfully ward off the Kings own blows, and hold his hands, in case of sudden and illegall assaults, much more then of malicious and premeditated: but yet denies, he may either wound or kill him, and that truely. To argue therefore from Davids example and words, The King may not with safe conscience be wittingly slain by his subjects: Ergo, He and his Cavaleers may not be forcibly resisted, repulsed by them for their own defence and preservation, is a grosse inconsequent by the Doctors own confession.

Thirdly, there is nothing in all these speeches, or the practise, or in David, pertinent to the case in dispute; for when 1. Sam. 2 c. 3. 10 16. Davids 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 Soveraigne 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 bat­tell in the Cave, is a Non-sence 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 Logick, Reason, Law or Divinitie is there in such an argument? So after this when 1. Sam. 26, [...] 7. to 25 Abishai said to David, God hath delivered Saul thine enemie 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 Lords Anoynted (to wit, to slay him purposely, as Abishai inten­ded) and be guiltlesse? The Text is expresse. 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 onely affailants, they came into Sauls Trenches, he and his whole army were in so sound a sleep, that they came to Sauls 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; [Page 96] and to do it with the hazard of their own lives, had any of Sauls 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 rashnesse, indiscretion; their departure with the Spear and Cruse was more Heroicall, Loyall, prudentiall. To conclude therefore, as our Opposites do from this speech and example, That David thought it unlawfull in point of Conscience for him or Abishai to murther 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 actuall 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 battell, then he might lawfully defend himselfe against his violence, though he might not murther him now in his sleep, when he did him no hard; and if he casually perished in the bat­tell, it was Sauls own wilfull default, not his, who could not disswade 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 murther him and his men in battell without resistance. Yea, Davids earnestnesse to go with Achish and the Pallistines to the battell against Sanl, wherein he perished, 1 Sam. 2 [...] (unlesse we will taxe Da­vide for a notable Hypocrite and dissembler) unanswerably eviden [...]eth, that he deem­ed it lawfull to resist, to encounter Saul and his Forces in battell, 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 2 Sam. 2. Amalekite who brought him tydings of Sauls death, reporting that himself had slain him, to gain a reward from David, he being then one of Sauls souldiers (as it seems) concludes onely, that it was not lawfull for any of Sauls own men to saly him, by his own com­mand: Not that resistance of him in the open battell was unlawfull 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 personall between Saul and David, Da­vid being then Sauls private subject, Servant, Son in Law, not publike between Saul his whole Parliament or Kingdom; now many things are unlawfull to be done in private quarrels, which are iust and honourable in publike differences.

Secondly, that David himself, though he thus forbore to murther Saul, yet he tels him, 1. Sam. 24, 10, 11, 12. This day thine eyes have seen how that the Lord had deli­vered thee to day 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 Lords anoynted. 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 evill 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 [Page 97] Lord render to every man according to his right consnes & faithfulnes, for the Lord deli­vered thee into my hand to day, 1 Sam. 26. 23, 24. but I would not stretch forth my hand against the Lords annointed. 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 Sauls life into his power, that it was his owne meer goodnesse that moved him to spare Saul contrary to his Souldiers, and Abishaies minds, who would have slain him, without any seruple of conscience; that the reasons he spared him were: First, because he was Gods Annointed, that is, specially designed and made King of Israel by Gods 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 unnaturall act in him. Thirdly, because it had favoured onely of private self-revenge and ambitious aspiring to the Crown before due time, which became not David, the quarrell, being then not publike, but parti­cular betwixt him and David onely, 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 cleare his innocency to the world. Fifthly, to evidence his dependence upon God and his speciall 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 faile in cases of publike defence, and the present controversie. Thirdly, that Saul himselfe, as well as Davids Souldiers, conceived, that David might with safe conscience have slain as well as spared him; witnesse 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 evill: And thou hast shewedme this day how thou hast deals well with me; for asmuch as when the Lord had delivered me into thine hand THOU KILLEDST ME NOT. For if a man finde 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; returne my sonne 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 ayd from these, much lesse from that evasion of Dr. Fern, who makes this, and all other Davids demeanors in standing out against Saul Sect. 2. p. 2. EXTRAORDINARY; for he was annointed and designed by the Lord to succeed Saul; and therefore he might also use all extraordinary wayes of safe guarding his persons; which like wise insinua [...]es, that this his scruple of conseience in sparing Sauls life was but extraordinary, (the rather, because all his Souldiers and Abishai would have slain Saul without any such scruple, and Saul himselfe conceived, that any man else but David would have done it:) and so by conse­quence affirms, that this his sparing of Saul is no wayes obligatory to other subjects, but that they may lawfully in Davids case kill their Soveraigns; But Davids 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 onely men, but all living creatures generally to use for their own defence, and this evasion derogating exceedingly from the personall 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 fansie of the Dr. & other loyalists, void both of truth and loyalty.

The 7. Object. 7. Objection out of the Old Testament is this, 1. Sam. 8. 11. Samuel tells the people, how they should be oppressed under kings; Dr Fern, Resolving of Conscience, Sect. 2. p. 10. And others. 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. Answer. 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 onely of the oppression, violence, and inju [...] (not lawfull 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 Royallists will renounce their champion. 2. It is but a meer fallacie and absurdity not warranted by the Text; which saith not, that they shall onely cry out; or that they shall use no remedy or resist­ance, but crying out; which had been materiall, but ba [...]ely, ye shall cry out in that day, &c. Ergo, they must and should onely crie out, and not resist at all; is a grosse Non-sequitur: which Argument because much cryed 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 onely pray and not fight for them, nor yeeld tribute or obedience to them: Kings and their Subjects too are bound to crie out, and pray to God against forraign enemies that come to war against them, as Exod. 14. Moses did against Pharaoh and his Host, Psa. 59. I. 10 and other Psal. David against his enemies, 2 Chron. 32. 20. 2 King. 19. Hezekiah against Sennacherib and his Hoste, 2 Chron. 14. 9 9. to 15. Asa against his enemies, 2 Chron. 13 14, 15, 16. A­bijah and the men of Iudah against Ieroboam 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 onely pray, but in no wise resist or fight against them; All men must pray to God for their Mat. 16. 11. daily bread: Ergo, they must onely pray and not labour for it; Sick Iam. 5. 14, 15, 16. persons must pray to God to restore their health: Ergo, they must take no Physick, but onely pray; All men are expresly commanded to Psal. 50. 15 crie and call upon God in the day of trouble, Ergo, they must use no meanes but prayer to free themselves from trou­ble; pretty Logick, Reason, Divinity, fitter for derision then any serious Answer. This is all this Text concludes, and that grosly 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 defence is necessary, as now) ought to concurre; 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 Gods Match. 22. 23. 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 lesse complain to their Parliament for relief; as conclude from thence; Ergo, they may in no case re­sist the king, Object. 8. or his invading Forces, though they indeavour to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, as the Doctor himself states the controversie: whose arguments will hardly satisfie conscience, being so voyd of reason, sence; yea science.

The eighth is this, Dr ferne, Sect. 2, 3. An App [...]al to thy Conscience. None of the Prophets in the old Testament, reprehending the [Page 99] Kings of Israel and Iudeh for their grosse Iaolatry, cruelty, oppression, did call upon the Elder of the people for the duty of resistance; neither do we finde 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 unlawfull.

To which I must reply, Answ. 1. 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 lawfull, 2. 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. 3. Thirdly, Antique, Iud. l. 4. c. 8. Iosephus resolves expresly, 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, 4. cruelty oppressions. Fourthly, Explanat. Artit. 42. Ope­rum, Tom. 1. 84 Hulderichus Zuinglius, a famous Protestant Divine, with others, positively af­firms, That the Israelites might not onely 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 subjoynes the cause of them, saying, Verse 4. I will give them in fury to all the Kingdoms of the Earth; ( that is, I will stirre up in fury all the kings of the earth against them) because of Manasseh the son of Hezekiah king of Iudah, for that which he did in Ierusalem. This Manasseh had committed many wickednesses by Ido­latrie and the stedding of innocent blood, as we may see in the one and twentieth Chapter of the second of the Kings; for which evills the Lord grievously punished the people of Israel: Manasseh shed overmuch innocent blood, untill he had filled Ierusalem even to the mouth, with his sins wherewith he made Iudah to sinne, that it might do evill before the Lord: Therefore because Manasseh King of Iudah did these most vile abominati­ons, above all that the Amorites had done before him, and made the Land of Iudah to sin in his undeanesse, therefore thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Behold, I will bring evill upon Ierusalem and Iudah, that whosever shall hear, both his ears shall tingle &c. In summe, if the Iews had not thus permitted their King to be wicked WITHOVT PVNISMENT, they had not been so griev [...]nsly punished by God. We ought to pull and crost 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 Zuinglius, with whom even Third Part of the True Difference be­tween Christi­on subjection, &c p. 513. 514. B. Rilson himself in some sort accords who in de ending & interpreting his opinion, c [...]ntesseth, 1 Sam. 14. That it is a question among the Learned, What Soveraignty the whole people of Israel had over their Kings; confessing, that the peoples resouing Ionathan that he died not, when Saul would have put him to d [...]th, 1 Chron. 13. Davids speech to the peo [...]le when he purposed to reduce the Arke, 1 Kin. 12. all the Congregations speech and carriage to­ward Rehoboam when they came to make him King, with the Ier. 26. p [...]ople: speech to Iere­my, Thou shalt die the death; have perswaded 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 [Page 100] God would not punish the people for the kings iniquity, which they must suffer, and not redresse. Which opinion, if as Orthodox, as these learned Divines and Iosephus averre it, not onely quite ruines our Opposites Argument, but their whole Treatises and cause at once. But fiftly, I answer, that subjects not onely by command of Gods Pro­phets, but of God himself, and by his speciall approbation have taken up Arms against their Idolatrous Princes, to ruine them and their Posterities: A truth so apparent in Scripture, that I wonder our purblinde Doctors discern it not: For did not God him­self, notwithstanding his frequent (conditionall) Promises to establish the Kingdom of Israel on David, Solomon and their Posterity; for 1 King. 11. 1. to 40. Solomons grosse Idolatry ( oc­casioned by his Wives) tell Solomon in expresse terms? VVherefore 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 dayes 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, 1 King. 12. 2 Chr. 10. did not ALL ISRAEL upon Solomons death, when Rehoboam his son refused to grant their iust requests at their coming to Se­chem to make him king, use this speech to the king, What Portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of lesse, 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 hearkned not unto the people, for the cause was from the Lord, that he might perform the saying which the Lord spake to Abijah unto Ieroboam, 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 Iudah 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 hearkned 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 Gods and his Prophets speciall direction, and approbation, for King Solomons Idolatry. Who is such a stran­ger to the sacred Story, but hath oft-times read, how God anoynted Iehu King, of purpose to extirpate and out off the whole house of K. Ahab his Lard for his and Iezabels Idolatry and blood-shed, in flaying the Prophets, and unjustly executing Naboth for his Vineyard? in performance whereof he slew his Soveraign King Ioram, Ahaziah King of Iudah, Queen Iezabel, all Ahabs 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 Iehu, Because THOV 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 Thron of Israel. [Page 101] This fact therefore of his thus specially commanded, approved, rewarded by God him­self, must needs be just and lawfull, nor Treason, nor Rebellion in Iehu, unlesse the Opposites will charge God to be the author, approver, and rewarder of sin, of Treason.

Neither will it serve their turns to Reply, Evasion, Reply. that this was an extraordinary example, not to be imitated without such a speciall commission from heaven, as Iehu had, and no man can now a dayes expect; Deut. 13. thorowout. c. 17. 1. to 8. For since God hath frequently injoyned all grosse incorrigible Idolaters (especially those who are nearest and dearest to, and most potent to seduce us) to be put to death, without any pitty, 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 Iudah abundantly evidence) if Kings be­come open professed Idolaters, though private persons may not murther them, and their families, as Iehu; 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 Gods putting zeal and courage into their hearts, or exciting them by his faithfull Ministers, to such a proceeding, is a sufficient Divine Commission to sa­tisfie Conscience, if no sinister private ends, but meer zeal of Gods glory, and detesta­tion of Idolatry be the onely Motives to such their proceedings. 1 Kin. 15 [...] 27. to 34. 1. 16 1, 2. 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 Ieroboam 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 Ieroboams sins, r Kings 16. 1, to, 20. God threatens to out off all his house, and make it like the house of Ieroboam; which was actually executed by Zimri, who slew his Soveraign 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 judgement 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 onely out of ambition to usurp the Crown, without the peeples consent; whereupon all the people made Omri King and then going all to the Royall Palace, set it on fire, and burnt Omri in it, both for his sins, Idolatries, and Treason which he wrought. We read expresly, 2 Chron. 25, 27, 28. c, to 6. 1 King. 14. 19, 20, 21. c, 15. that after the time that Amaziah did turn away from following the Lord, they (for this) conspired a conspiracie against him in Ierusalem, 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 Iudah. Then all the people of Iudah 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 2 King. 15. Zachariah, Shallum, Pekahiah, Pekah, four evill Kings of Iudah, successivly acquiring the Crown by murther, and reigning evilly in Gods fight, were all slain by Gods just judgement on them, of one another, and Hoshea. In few words, God himself ever annexed this condi­tion to the Kings of Israel and Iudah, 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 1 Sam. 12. 14. 19, 25. 2 Sam. 7. 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, Psa. 89. 30, 31, 32, O Chro. 28. 7, 8, 9. 1 Kin. 11. 9, 10, 11, 12. 32, 38. 1 Sam. 19. 23, 26, 27, 28 29, 25 c. 16. 1. comfared with Deut. 7. 16 to the end. Kings. When therefore they apparently violated the condition, the whole State and people, as Gods Instruments, lawfully might, and sometimes did by Gods speciall direction, remov [Page 102] depose, and sometimes put them even to death for their grosse iniquities, and idola­tries; and when they did it not, it was not (as many think) for want of lawfull Sove­raign 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 generall complying with their Kings in 1 King 12. 3 c, 3. 33. 34. c. 4 to 7. c. 15 to the end of, c. 22. 2 King. c. 1. to the end of 6. 25. 2 Chro. 10. 1. to the end of c. 24. their abominable idolatries and sins, which brought War, Captivity, ruine, both on their Kings, their Posteritie, the whole Nation and Kingdoms of Iudah, and Israel, as the Sacred Story plentifully relates. All which considere, this object on proves not onely false, but fatall to the Obiectors cause, who might with more discretion have forborn, then forced such an answer to it, which I hope and desire no private persons will abuse to iustifie any disloyalty, sedition, Treason, Rebellion, or taking up of Arms against their lawfull Princes, though never so evill, without the publike consent and authority of the representative bodies or major part of their severall Realms by assed with no sinister nor private respects, but ayming onely at Gods glory, and the publike weale security, peace of Church and State. Thus much in answer to the principall Objections out of the Old Testament. Object 9.

The ninth and most materiall Dr Ferne, Sect. 2. p 10, 11, 12 ande se­where. The ne­tessitie of Chri­stian Sub [...]ection, Oxford, 1643. Appeal to thy Conscience, 1643. I he Lords Anoin­ted, Oxford, 1643 with others. Objection, on which our Opposites principally relie, is that noted Text in the new Testament, Rom. 13. 1, 2. Let every soul be subject unto the higher Powers, for there is no Power but of God; the Powers that be, are Ordai­ned of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God, and they that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation. From whence Dr. Fern concludes, 1. That the King is the Supreme or Highest Power here intended. 2. That all persons un­der the Highest Power are expressely forbidden to resist. 3. That in those dayes there was astanding and continuall great Senate, which not long before had the Supreme Power in the Roman State, and might challenge more by the fundamentalls of that State, then our Great Councell will or can. But now the Emperour being supreme, as S. Peter calls him, or the Higher Power, as S. Paul here, there is no power of resistance left to any that are under him, by the Apostle. 4 Was there ever more cause of resistance then in those dayes? Were not the Kings then not onely conceived to be inclined so, and so, but even actually to be enemies of Religion, had overthrown Laws and Liberties? And therefore if any should from the Apostles reasons that he gives against resistance in the 3, 4, 5, Verses. ( for Ru­lers are not a terror to good works, but evill, and he is the Minister of God to thee for good) replie, That Rulers so long as they are not a terror to the good, but ministers for our good, are not to be resisted; the consideration of those times leaves no place for such ex­ception, because the Powers then (which the Apostle forbids to resist) were nothing so, but subverters of that which was good and just. The Emperors did then indeed rule abs [...]l [...]te­ly [...]d arburarily, which should have according to the Principles of those dayes beene 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 dayes) good against them, with as much or more reason, then the right of the people of this Land is against the Succession of this Crown, des [...]nding by three Conquests? 5. The prohibition doth not onely concern Christians, but all the people under those Emperors, and not onely Religion was persecuted, but Liberties also lost, the people and Senate were then enslaved by Edicts and Laws then inforced on them by Nero and other Roman Emperours, yet notwithstanding the Apostle prohibits them to resist. By all which conscience will clearly see, it can have no warrant in Scripture for resistance, to wit, of [Page 103] the King, or his invading Forces, by way of necessary defence. So the Doctors and o­ther Objectors hence conclude.

To give a satisfactory Answer to this grand Objection, I shall in the first place in­quire, Whether there be any thing in this Text, Answ. prohibiting subjects to resist with Force the armed unjust violence of their Princes persons or instruments, especially when they are bent to overthrow Religion, Laws, Liberties, the Republike, and turn professed Tyrants? And under correction, I conceive there is not the least syllable or shadow in this Text for any such inhibition, as is pretended. Not to insist upon the words, higher Powers odained of God, &c. which extend not unto Tyrannie and illegall exorbitant op­pressions, of which hereafter; I shall deducemy first Demonstrations to prove this ne­gative Assertion, from the occasion inducing the Apostle to insert these objected Verses into this Epistle: Sixsold Com­ment, on Rom. 13. Quest. 1. p. 576. Dr Willet recites 7. Reasons of it, all fortifying my assertion; I shall mention onely the three most probable, most received of them, and apply them as I go.

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

2. The Gaulonites, as Antiqu. Iud. l. 18. c. 1. 2. Iosephus records, with other lews, being Abrahams seed, held it unlawfull for them to yeeld any subjection or tribute to the Roman Emperors, or other Heathen Princes, reigning over them; whereupon they demanded this que­stion of Christ himself, It is lawfull to pay tribute to Caesar? Matth. 12. which error perehance spread it self into the Christian Church, by reason of Evangelicall Libertie, grounded on Ioh. 8. If the Son shall make you free, then are ye free indeed; Mat. 17. Then are the Children free; and Ro. 6. We are not under the Law, but under Grace. [...]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 hea he [...] Magistrates, because they are Gods Ordinance, Ergo, No Subjects can with safe conscience defend themselves in any case against the unjust in­vasions of Tytannicall Princes or their Armies. A palpable Inconsequent.

Thirdly, the Apostle having formerly t [...]ught, Rom. 12, 19, that Christians might not avenge themselves: lest some might have inserred thereupon (as many O slander. Enchir contr. cap. [...]. de Ma­gist. Polit. Anabaptists have done) that it was not lawfull for Christians to use the Magistrates defence against wrongs, nor for the Magistrate himself to take vengeance of evill doers: To prevent this the Apostle argues, That the Magistrates are Gods Ministers, appointed by him to punish Malefactors, and take vengeance on them. So Gualther, Willet, and others. To con­clude from this ground: Oppressed Subjects may seek redresse of their grievances from the Magistrates, who may lawfully punish Malefactors, Ergo, they may not resist [Page 104] with force, Tyrannicall bloody Magistrates, or their wicked Instruments, when they actually make war upon them, to ruine, spoyl, enslave them, is but a ridiculous Non sequitur. There is nothing therefore in the occasions of the Apostles words which gives the least colour, to disprove the lawfulnesse of such resistance, or of the Parlia­ments just defensive war.

Secondly, this is manifest by the whole Scope of this Text, which in summe is onely this, That Christians ought in conscience to (l) be subject to all lawfull higher Powers, so farre forth as they are Gods Ordinance, Gods Ministers, for their good, to the praise of the good, and punishment of evill doers, and notto resist them in the execution of their just Authority: Or Christianity exempts not Christians from obedience unto faithfull Civill Magistrates: to inferre from thence. Ergo it is unlawfull for Christians in point of conscience to resist their Magistrates when they warre upon them to subvert Religi­on, Lawes, Liberties, slay, plunder them, is but a meer non-sence deduction.

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

First, the higher Powers must be submitted to, and not resisted, because they are ordained of God, and are Gods Ordinance, vers. 1. 2. But they are ordained of God and his Ordinance, so far forth only as they govern according to his Word; and preserve, Isay 32. 1, 2. c. 49. 23. 1 Sa. 8. 20. Psa. 78. 72, 73, 74. protect Religion, Lawes, Liberties, the persons and estates of their people; They are not Gods Ordinance, Paraus, Willet, So [...]o, and others. but the Devils, when they doe quite contrary, 1 Pet. 5. 8. walking about like roaring Lions, seeking whom they may devoure, as the Devill doth; Accor­ding to that resolution of Bracton, and Fleta Lib. 3. c. 9. f. 107. 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 farre forth onely to be obeyed and not resisted, Fleta, l. 1. [...]. 17. as they are Gods Ordinance, and lawfull Magistrates, not as they are tyrants and the Devils Agents: we might have obeyed the evill spirits themselves whiles they continued good Angels; Ergo we must not resist them now they are turned Devils, is ill Logick, course Divinity, con­trary to the 1 Pet. 5. 8, 9. Iam. 4. 7.

Secondly, because those who resist shall receive to themselves damnation, temporall or eternall, since they resist Gods Ordinance, v. 2. But that subiects should be tempo­rally and eternally damned, only for resisting tyrannicall Magistrates or their Cava­leers, and that by authority from the Parliament, when they with armed violence most impiously set themselves to subvert Religion, Lawes, Liberty, Propertie, and take away their lives, against all Lawes of God and Man; for which they themselves in­curre both Isay 14. 4. ro 23. 1 King. 1. 21, & 22. Psal. 52. 1. to 7. Psa. 7. 13. Psa. 94. 10. 21. 23. Psal. 140. 1. to 13. temporall and eternall damnation, is such a Paradox, as is no wayes warranted by, but directly opposite to the Scripture. Therefore it must be intended onely of resisting lawfull Authority, and iust commands.

3. They must be subiected to, not resisted, because Rulers are not a terror to good work, but to evil, v. 3. Now is this a reason why Subiects should not resist tyrannicall oppres­sing Princes, Magistrats, or their Instruments, who are only a terror to good works, not to evill? who do Psal. 140. 1. Io. 60. Prov 1. 16. Mich. 2. 13. c. 3. 23. 1 [...]. 3. evill and only evill continually, even with both hands? doubtlesse not. We must not resist Rulers who are a terror to good works but to evill; Ergo, we must not resist Rulers, who are a terror to good works, not to evill, as our Opposites con­clude hence, is to argue poi [...] blank against the Apostle; Ergo, we may and must [Page 105] resist them to our powers, lest we be Rom. 1. 31. 32. 1 Tim. 5. 22 2 Iohn 10. 11. Rev. 18 4. partakers of their sinnes and punishments, and be­come authors of Religions and the Commonwealths subversion, is a more proper inference.

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

Fiftly, he is not to be resisted, but obeyed; because he is the Minister of God to thee for good, Vers. 4. But is this true of Tyrants? of ungodly Magistrates bent to subvert Religion, Lawes, Liberties, and destroy their people? True of See Sueto­nius, Eutropius, Zonaras, Grim­ston and others in their lives. Caligula, of Nero, who wished all the Romans had but one necke, that he might cut them all off at one stroke; and purposely fired Rome to consume it, beholding the flames as a most delightfull spectacle? Are such the Ministers of God for our good here intended? or not rather, See Seneca de Clem. l. 1. Hosea 13. 11. the very Pests, Judgements, Scourges, Wolves, Cut-throats, destroyers of mankind, and direct An­tinodes to all things that are good? If these be not within the Apostles definition, they are without his inhibition; which extends onely to such, who are the Mini­sters of God to us for good: and implies a lawfulnesse of resisting those who are the Devils Ministers to us for evill, rather then Gods for good.

Sixtly, He subjoynes this further reason of obedience and not resistance, Vers. 5. But if thou dost that which is evill be afraid; for he beareth not the Sword in vaine; for hee is the Minister of God, a revenger, to execute wrath upon him that doth evill; which no wayes suites with a Tyrant bent to subvert Religion, Lawes, Liberties: For he secures all evill men, especially those who are instrumentall to advance his cruelty, and op­pressions; gives liberty to all manner of wickednesses, Proclaimes impunity to his ill instruments, knowing that of the Poet to be true; ‘ Lucan. d. Bello Civili. l. 8. p. 141. Libertas scelerum est quae Regna invisa tuetur, &c.’ He beareth the sword not onely in vaine, in reference to any good end, for the pro­moting of Gods glory and the publike good; but likewise draweth it forth, and useth it directly against both; See Fox Acts and Mo­numents throughout. And is so farre from being a Minister of God, or reven­ger to execute wrath upon them that doe evill, that he is the very Minister of the Devill, Apolog. c. 5. and Seneca devita beaia, c. 24. Tertullian, Nihil nisi grande aliquid bonum a Nerone damnatum. This reason then extends onely to righteous Governours, in their execution of justice upon wicked malefactors wherein they must not be resisted; Not to bloody, gracelesse, lawlesse Tyrants and their instruments, who by the rule of con­traries may and ought to be resisted in their cruelties, oppressions, impieties.

Seventhly, the Apostle hereupon concludes, Vers. 5. Wherefore you must of necessity be subject not onely for wrath, but also for conscience sake. This conclusion as the word, Where­fore, demonstrates, being inferred from the premised reasons, extending onely to [...] [Page 108] extends to all civill Magistrates, as well inferiour and subordinate, as superiour, (and many sticke not to straine it even to Ecclesiasticall ones) So Origen, Ambrose, Hierome, Remigius, Theodulus, Chrysostome, Theodoret, Primasius, Haymo, Rabanus Maurus, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Haymo, Aquinas, Anselm, Lyra, Bruno, Gorran, Hugo de Sancto Victore, Tostatus, Luther, Calvin, Erasmus, Melanchthon, Gualther, Musculus, Bucer, Hemingius, Ferus, Fayus, Soto, Alexander Alesius, Peter Martyr, Pareus, Beza, Piscator, Zuinglius, Tollet, Willet, Wilson, Nacclantus, Snecanus, Vignerius, Wenerichius, Winckelman, E­stius, Faber, Cornelius a Lapide, Salmeron, Catharinus, Guilliandus, Adam Sasbout with sundry others. This then being irrefragable, hereby it is most apparent; First, that no resistance of the higher powers is here prohibited, but onely in the due and le­gall execution of their offices: For if any inferiour Officers illegally indeavour to subvert Religion, Lawes, Liberties, and unrightly governe the people, they may lawfully be resisted by them: For example, if a Maior, Justice of Peace, Constable or other officer; extravagating from the common course of Law and Justice; shall with force of armes in a riotous manner assault any private man, or the whole Citie or Village where he lives, to beate, wound, kill, plunder, dispossesse the inha­bitants of their houses, goods, franchises, or assault them on the highway side, to take away their purses; in these and such like cases, both in point of Law and con­science he may not onely be forcibly resisted, but repulsed, apprehended, battered, if not lawfully slaine by the people, and proceeded against as a delinquent: The reason is, because these illegall unjust actions, are not onely besides, without their Com­missions, but directly contrary to their offices, and the Lawes, which never gave them authority to act such injustice: yet they are higher Powers ordained of God, within this Text, and no way to be resisted in the due execution of their Offices according to Law. If then these inferiour Officers may be thus forcibly resisted, repulsed, not­withstanding this Text, in such cases as these; then by the selfe same reason Kings and Emperours may bee thus resisted too; since the Text extends indifferently to them both. Let then the objectors take their choyce; either affirme, that no inferi­our lawfull Officers whatsoever, may be forcibly resisted, by the people, or repulsed, arraigned censured for their misdemeanour, by vertue of this Text; which would bring an absolute Tyranny, Anarchy and confusion presently into the world, and make every Constable as great a Tyrant, Monarch as the grand Emperor of the Turks; or else confesse, that this Text condemnes not such resistance, even of Kings and Princes, when they forcibly war upon their Subjects to subvert Religion, Lawes, Liberties, and ruine the republike; since it makes no distinction at all betweene the ones power and the others; but equally enjoynes subjection, prohibits resi­stance unto both; and that onely in just administration of their severall authori­ties, not in the arbitrary unjust prosecutions of their wils and lusts.

Secondly, it followes, that the Kings Souldiers, Cavaliers and Forces now raised against Law, and armed onely with illegall Commissions voyd in Law, as I have proved; are none of the high powers ordained of God, nor lawfull Rulers or Ma­gistrates within the meaning of this Scripture; and so the forcible resisting of them, and of the Kings illegall commands and designes executed by them, is no resistance of the higher powers here prohibited.

Thirdly, that the Houses of Parliament being in truth the highest powers ordai­ned of God in this Realme, and their just legall Ordinances, Votes, Forces, for the [Page 109] necessary defence of Lawes, Liberties, Religion, against the Kings ill Counsellors, and Malignant Popish Forces, neither may, nor ought in conscience to be resisted by the King himselfe, or any of his Subjects, Souldiers, under the perill of that damna­tion mentioned in this Chapter.

For the second, Quest. 2. Whether the Roman Emperor in Pauls time was the highest Soveraign power in the Roman State, or not? It is taken for granted by Doctor Ferne and other Doctor Ferne, Appeale to thy consci­ence; The ne­cessity of sub­jection. op­posites, that he was, as a thing past doubt, the Senate and people (as they say) having resigned up their power to the Emperour. But this no doubt is a grosse errour, (which I have largely refuted in the Appendix, and therefore shall be the briefer here) derived from some civill Lawyers; who out of Justinian. Digest. lib. 2. Tet. 2. and Instit. Tit. 2. falsly affirme, that Lege Regia; by the regall Law the Senate and people trans­ferred all their Empire and power unto the Emperour. For first the Senate and people (as Albericus Gentilis well observes) did not by this Law give the Emperour all power and command to dispose of them, or the lands and revenues of the Empire, as he pleased; but onely to governe them according to their Lawes, as men; not to slay and alienate them as beasts. Thus reason dictates, so the words of the Law sound. Alci. l. 3. de V. s. l. 35. & de P [...]. Divines are deceived, Lawyers flatter, who perswade, that all things are lawfull to Princes, and that their power is highest and free. It is ridiculous to affirme, that absolute power over the subjects belongs to Popes; which belongs not to the Emperours themselves over the Italians, from whom they derive it. Imagine therefore that the Emperour had a power never so free, yet it is not of dominion, but of administration. L. 7. de Don. l. 1. quae res, p. 1. da. ob. non. pos. l. 8. qui mo piso l. 17. pro. Empt. And he who hath but a free administration hath not the power of donation. ^e A gardian is then reputed in stead of a Lord, cum tutelam administrat, non cum pupillum spoliat; when he rightly administers his tutelage, not when he spoyles his pu­pill. So Gentilis. If then the Emperours had onely a free legall administration, not an absolute dominion; granted them by the people, then this soveraigne power still resided in the Senate and people, as Justinian Digest. lib. 1. Tit. 2. De Origine Juris, will sufficiently manifest: Secondly, Common-weale, l. 2. c. 5. p. 221. John Bodin a learned Civilian clearely proves: That the Roman Emperors were at the first; nothing else but Princes of the Commonweale, The SOVERAIGNTY NEVERTHELESSE STILL REST­ING IN THE PEOPLE, and THE SENATE: So that this Common-wealth was then to have beene called a Principality; although that Seneca speaking in the person of Nero his Scholler, saith. I am the onely man amongst living men, elect and chosen to be the Lieutenant of God upon earth: I am the Arbitratour of life and death; I am able of my pleasure to dispose of the state and quality of every man. True it is, that he tooke upon him this Soveraigne authority, by force wrested from the people and Senate of Rome, (therefore not freely given him by any Law) but IN RIGHT HE HAD IT NOT, the State being but a very principalitie WHEREIN THE PEOPLE HAD THE SOVERAIGNTY. In which case, THERE IS NO DOUBT but that IT IS LAWFULL to proceede a­gainst a Tyrant by way of justice, if so men may prevaile against him: or else by way of fact, Sucionius, Zona [...]as, Grim­ston, Eutropius, Sab [...]llicus, Op [...]neerus, and others in his life. 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 raigne when this Epistle was written, the highest soveraigne power was not in the Emperour, but in the Senate and people: who not­withstanding this objected Text, had no doubt a lawfull Right, not onely to re­sist Nero when he turned Tyrant with open force, but likewise judicially to arraigne [Page 110] and condemne him even to death, as they did, for his publike crimes. Now that the So­veraigne 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 Bookes De principatu ( purposely written to refute the contrary common error) where he writes, ‘ First, that the Roman Emperors were crea­ted and constituted onely by the Senat and people; and that the Creature should be superiour to the Creator, the child to the parent, is absurd. Secondly, that the Emperours were but the Senates and peoples publike servants; therefore they were their Lords; and not inferiour, but superiour to their servants. Thirdly, that they were subordinate and inferiour to the Lawes made by the Senate and people; and bound by all their Lawes, but such as the Senate and people did by speciall Acts exempt them from. Fourthly, that the people and Senate did by speciall Lawes cre­ate, limit, Marius Salamonius de Principatu, l. 6. p. 122. to 126. enlarge or abridge their Emperours power and jurisdiction, as they saw cause, giving sometimes more or lesse jurisdiction to one Emperour then ano­ther: which they could not justly doe, were they not the highest Soveraigne pow­er. Finally he proves it by the very Lex Regia it selfe; which because rare and un­knowne to most, I shall here recite, to informe and reforme our ignorant Court Do­ctors, Lawyers, with Salamonius his observations from it. Lex Regia, was not onely one single Law: There was not one Law for all Emperours, but it was revived for every Emperour, yet not with the same conditions. The brasse Table which yet hangeth in the Lateran Church, proves that the Royall Law was accusto­med to be altered in every Princes reigne AT THE PLEASVRE OF THE ROMAN PEOPLE; for it is part of the Royall Law of the Empire of Ve­spatian, that it should be altered: which had beene voyd, if from the beginning of the Empire a perpetuall Law had beene made for all successors; the words of the Law are these.’

‘This Law first shewes, that there was not one royall Law made for all Emperors, but that for every severall Emperour severall Lawes were necessary, containing the conditions whereupon the Principalitie was collated by the Roman people: For to Vespatian, it appeares power was granted, of enlarging or setling the bounds, as it was granted to Germanicus, but not to other Princes. And in the last Chap­ter but one, which saith: And by those things which by any Law, &c. it is lawfull to doe; a larger power is given to Vespatian then to the forenamed Emperours; and that they ought to doe some things, which Vespatian ought not to doe by Law. Likewise by these words; Vtique quibus legibus, &c. solutus sit: it appeares that Vespatian was not freed from all Lawes, nor yet the Emperour before him. Likewise out of the Chapter where it saith, Ex usu Reip. Majestate, &c. it is evident that not an absolute free administration of things was committed to the Empe­rours, but onely such as was usefull, that is, which should be for the profit and honour of the republike: whence is inferred, that those things which were not for the benefit and honour of the Commonweale, Emperors had no right nor power to doe. And in the last Chapter is perspicuously set downe THAT SU­PERIOUR POWER OF THE PEOPLE, GREATER THEN THE PRINCIPALITY IT SELFE. How then doth Vlpian say, the Prince is loosed from Lawes? he saith not from all Lawes: verily that he was exempt from many is no doubt, &c. (yet it was by a speciall clause in the Lex Regia.)’ This and much more Salamonius. All which considered, will infallibly evidence, the Ro­man Senate and People to be the highest power in Pauls time, not the Emperour; who even at this day (as Commonweale l. 2 c. 5. Bodin proves) is inferiour to the Germane States, who are the Soveraigne power: when King Henry the fourth of France, Anno 1600. used this speech to the Duke of Savoy; Generall History of France, p. 965. If the King of France would be ambitious of any thing grea­ter then his Crowne, 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 soveraingty (writes the Historian in the Margin) remaining in the States of the Empire.

All that is objected against the premises, is that passage of Tertullian, Object. much insisted on: Colimus ergo & Imperatorē sic, Ad Scapu­lam, lib. p. 163. Objected by, The necessity of Subjection, and others. 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, Answ. that these words onely prove the Emperour in the Roman State to be the highest Officer and Magistrate under God, of any one particular per­son; not that he was the Soveraigne highest power above the Senate and people col­lectively considered: And the occasion of these words will discover the Authors in­tention [Page 112] 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 Rhenani Annot. Ibid. Tertullian writes this Booke, because they refused to adore the Emperour for a God, to sweare by his Genius, and to observe his solemnities and triumphs in an Ethnicall manner; as is evident by the words preceding this passage: Sic & circa Majestatem Imperatoris infamamur, &c. and by sundry notable passages in his Apologeticus. In answer to which accusation Tertullian reasons in the Christians behalfe; that though they adored not the Emperour as a God; yet they reverenced him as a man next under God; as one onely lesse then God; as one greater then all others, whiles lesse onely then the true God, and greater then the Idol Gods themselves, who were in the Emperours power, &c. Here was no other thing in question; but whether the Emperour were to be adored as God? not, whether he or the Roman Senate and people were the greatest highest Soveraigne power? And the answer being, that he was but a man next under God, above any other particular officer in the Roman State; is no proofe at all, that he was paramount the whole Senate and people collectively considered, or of greater Soveraigne power then they; which the premises clearely disprove. Adde; that this Father in his Apologie thus censures the Pagan Romans for their grosse flattery of their Emperours whom they feared more then their Gods, appliable to our present times; Siquidem majore formidine & callidiore timiditate Cae­sarem observatis, quam ipsum de Olympo Jovem, &c. adeo & in isto irreligiosi erga dees vestros deprehendimini, cum plus timoris, humano Domino dicatis; citius denique apud vos per omnes Deos, quam per unum genium Caesaris pejeratur. Then he addes, Interest hominis Deo cedere; satis habeat appellari Imperator: grande & hoc nomen est, quod a Deo tradetur: negat illum imperatorem qui deum dicit; nisi homo sit, non est imperator. Homi­nem se esse etiam triumphans in illo sublimissimo curru admonetur. Suggeritur enim ci a tergo, Respice post te; hominem memento te. Etiam hoc magis gaudet tanta se gloria coruscare, ut illi admonitio conditionis suae sit necessaria. Major est qui revocatur ne se deum existimet. Augustus imperii formator, ne Dominum quidem dici se volebat: et hoc enim Dei est cognomen. Dicam plane Imperatorem Dominum, sed more communi, sed quando non cogor, ut Dominum Dei vice dicam. Concluding thus: Nullum bonum sub exceptione personarum admini­stramus, &c. lidem sumus Imperatoribus qui & vicinis nostris. Male enim velle, male fa­cere, male dicere, male cogitare de quoquam ex aequo vetamur, Quodcunque non licet in Im­peratorem, id nec in quenquam: quod in neminem, eo forsitan magis nec in ipsum qui per deum tantus est, &c. From which it is evident, that the Christians did not deifie nor flatter their Emperours more then was meet, and deemed they might not resist them one­ly in such cases where they might resist no others, and so by consequence lawfully resist them, where it was lawfull for them to resist other private men who did injuri­ously assault them.

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

First, that power which is the highest and most soveraigne Authority in any State [Page 113] or kingdome by the Apostles and our Antagonists owne doctrine, even in point of conscience, neither may, nor ought in what case soever (say our opposites) to be for­cibly resisted, either in their persons, ordinances, commands, instruments, offices, or Armed Souldiers, by any inferiour powers, persons or subjects whatsoever, espe­cially when their proceedings are just and legall, under paine of temporall and eter­nall condemnation. But the Senate among the Romans, not the Emperour; and the Parliament in England, not the King, really were and are the higher Powers and most soveraigne Authority. Therefore by the Apostles own Doctrine even in point of conscience, they neither may nor ought to be disobeyed or forcibly resisted in any case whatsoever, either in their Persons, Ordinances, Commands, Instruments, Officers, or Armed Souldiers, by the King himselfe, his Counsellors, Armies, Ca­valiers, or by any inferiour powers, persons, or Subjects whatsoever, especially when their proceedings are just and legall, (as hitherto they have beene) under paine of temporall and eternall condemnation. I hope the Doctor and his Camerads will now beshrew themselves that ever they medled with this Text, and made such a hal­ter to strangle their owne treacherous cause, and those who have taken up armes in its defence.

Secondly, that Power which is simply highest and supreame in any State, may lawfully with good conscience take up Armes to resist or suppresse any other power, that shall take up armes to subvert Religion, Lawes, Liberties, the Republike, or the just Rights and Priviledges of the Subject, or of this higher power. This is our op­posites owne argumentation. Therefore the Parliament being in verity the highest supreame Power in our State, may lawfully with good conscience take up Armes to resist or suppresse his Majesties Malignant, Popish Forces, or any other power which already hath, or hereafter shall be raised to subvert Religion, Lawes, Liberties, the Republike, just Rights and Priviledges of Parliament, or the Subjects; and every man with safe conscience may chearefully serve in such a warre, upon the Parlia­ments encouragement or command, without guilt of treason, or rebellion either in Law or Conscience.

For the third Question; Quest. 3. Whether Tyrants or unjust oppressing Magistrates, as they are such, be within the intendment of this Text, and not to be resisted in any case? I have fully cleared this before from the occasion, scope and arguments used in this Chapter; that they are not within the compasse of this Text; as they are such, and may be re­sisted in their Tyranny and oppressions notwithstanding this inhibition; I shall not repeat, but onely fortifie this Position with some new reasons and autho­rities.

First then, that which is not the ordinance of God, but rather of the Devill, and the meere sinne and enormity of the Governour himselfe, not of the Government, is not within the intention of this Text, and may lawfully bee resisted without any violation of it. But Tyrants and unjust oppressing Magistrates as they are such, are See Mich. 3. 1. to 5. Isay 3. 4, 5. Zeph. 3, 3. Ezech. 45. 8, 9. not Gods ordinance, but rather the Devills, and their Tyranny and oppression is onely the sinne and enormity of the Governours themselves, not of the government; A truth granted by all men: Therefore they are not within the compasse of this Text, and may lawfully be resisted without any violation of it.

Secondly, that which is no point of the Magistrates lawfull power ordained of God, but diametrally repugnant to it, cannot be within the meaning of this Text, [Page 114] and may lawfully be resisted; but the tyranny, oppression, rapine, and violence of lawlesse Kings and Magistrates are such, as all must and doe acknowledge. Ergo, they are not within the verge and compasse of this Text, and may lawfully bee resisted.

Thirdly, all powers intended in the Text, are not only ordained, but ordered of God, that is, In Rom. 13. Col 1266. Willet. on Rom. 13. quest. 6. p. 583. Paraeus with others observe) they are circumscribed & bounded with certain Rules or Lawes of justice and honesty, within which they must containe themselves, else they exor­bitate from Gods ordinance when they passe beyond these limits, and become none of Gods; This the Greeke word [...], (which Arias Montanus and others render, ordinatae, and the Margin of our English Bibles, are ordered of God;) doth sufficiently war­rant being coupled with the subsequent limitations; For rulers are not a terrour to good workes, but to evill, &c. they are Gods Ministers attending continually on this very thing. Now the Tyranny and oppression of Kings and other Rulers, are meere exorbitances, arbitrary illegall actions, exceeding the bounds of justice and honesty prescribed by the Lawes of God and men. Therefore not within the limits of this Text, and re­sistible.

Fourthly, it is generally accorded by all Commentators, that though the lawfull power of Princes or other Magistrates degenerating unto Tyrants, be of God, and not to be resisted; yet the Tyranny it selfe, and abuse of this power is of Satan, not of God, and the vice of the persons onely, not of the Power it selfe; whence they conclude, that Ty­rants are not within the meaning of this Scripture. So Origen, Paraeus, Willet, with most others on this Text; and Zuinglius most expresly Explanatio Artic. 41. Tom. 1. f. 82. 83. where he complaines, that many Tyrants, cheate, steale, rob, slay, plunder, and at­tempt any thing against their subjects to oppresse them; assuming a pretext and vayle of their malice from this Text of Paul. Yea Dominicus Soto, Cajetan, Pererius, and other Popish commentators on this place observe; that Paul addes this Epithet, of higher or excelling powers ( omitted by him in other parallel Texts) of purpose to exclude Tyrants, who are no excelling Lords, nor lawfull Powers; reigning oft times by Gods permission for the peoples punishment; not by his ordination for their good: and blame Bueer for saying, that Tyrants power is from God, as if he were ths author of sinne and Tyranny.

This then fully answers that absurd errour of Doctor Sect. 2. Ferne, wherein all his force is placed: That the Power in Pauls dayes which he here prohibits to resist, were subverters of that which was good; and the Roman Emperors Tyrants: where he sottishly confounds the tyranny, lusts, and vices of the Emperors persons, which were detestable, with their power it selfe, which was good and commendable; as if the Imperiall power it selfe was ill, because Nero was ill, and was Grimston, Suetenius, Eu­tropius, Zonaras, Volaterranus, Speed and o­thers in his life. therefore justly condemned to death by the Roman Senate, as a publike enemy to the Roman State, though they approved and con­tinued his just Imperiall principality, which lasted in succession for many hundred yeares after his censure, death. To which I shall onely adde; that though Nero himselfe were a Tyrant, yet the Roman Senate, and all their Inferiour Offices were not Tyrants; many of them, no doubt, being just and upright Magistrates. The Precept therefore being thus in the generall, and the plurall number, Let every soule be subject unto the higher powers; nor personall; let them be subject to Nero; or spe­ciall, to the Roman Emperour (whom Paul no doubt would have As he doth Phil. 4. 22. Act. 25. v. 10, 11, 12. c. 26. 32. c. 28. 19. See Matth 22. 17. 2 [...]. Luk. 2. 1. c. 23. 2. Acts 11. 28. c. 17. 7. specified, had he specially intended them, as our opposites fondly dreame;) we may safely conclude, that the Apostle intended it onely of lawfull powers and Magistrates, not of Nero [Page 115] or other Tyrants: And writ this to Christians onely, to whom he dedicates this Epi­stle, witnesse Ch. 1. V. 7. To all that be at Rome beloved of God, called to be Saints, &c. not to Pagan Romans, as the Doctor dreames, to whom he writes not; much lesse to the Roman Senate, who were then the soveraigne power; and therefore could bee subject to no other but themselves. Precepts of obedience to children and Servants, con­cerne not parents and masters as such, in point of submission or obedience.

For the fourth Quere: Quest. 4. Whether Kings and Kingdomes be Gods ordinance; or an insti­tution Jure divino, not a humane ordinance, instituted Jure humano? or, how farre di­vine or humane? Is a necessary considerable question grounded on this Text, and very needfull to be discussed to cleare the present controversie.

Some of our opposites are so intoxicated with the divinity of Monarchy, as they confidently Doctor Ferne, Sect. 2. 3 Appeale to the Conscience, p. 11. [...]0 15. The necessitie of subjection. Christus Dei, p. 11. 12. with others. determine; hat the efficient cause of royall Monarchicall power is onely God; not the people. That Kings receive no power or regall Authority from the people, but from God alone; That the power of Kings is not a humane, but a divine power, of which God onely is the efficient cause. That the people doe not make the King, but God properly and absolutely; this power, right and authority he hath from God. That the King hath no dominion and power from his Subjects by way of trust, but from God, from whom he hath his kingdome and power, so that by Idolatry and oppression, he breakes not the trust reposed in him by his Sub­jects, because the people HAVE COMMITTED NOTHING TO HIS CHARGE, but God onely, &c. For proofe whereof they produce Prov. 8. 15. By me Kings reigne, Dan. 2. 21. God removeth Kings and setteth up Kings, Dan. 4. 17. 25. The most high ruleth in the kingdome 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. Isay 45. 1, 2. and other Texts.

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

First, betweene, Government it selfe in generall, and kingly or other kindes of govern­ment, in speciall, (as our opposites distinguish betweene, a Sabbath, and the Sabbath; the first they say is morall and of divine institution, the later not.)

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

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

Fourthly, in what severall senses things may be said to be of God. First, in re­spect of his owne immediate institution. Secondly, of his generall or speciall com­mands. Thirdly, of his generall or speciall disposing providence, without any spe­ciall institution or command. Fourthly, of his approbation of, assent unto, and blessing on the meere institutions of men. Fiftly, of his permission onely.

To apply these distinctions to the present occasion.

First, it is cleare, that power and government in generall are Gods owne instituti­on; who as he hath appointed (in the great fabricke of the world a Gen. 1. 16. 18. 28. 29 30. Jer. 31. 35, 36. Psal. 136. 8, 9. certaine constant [Page 116] forme of government and subordination of one creature to another) so he hath for the good of mankinde, appointed that there should be some forme of government or other among men in the world; which in respect of families hee hath specially and uni­versally decreed, Gen. 3. 16. Exod. 20. 12. Ephes. 6. 1, 2. 5. c. 5. 22. 24. Col. 3. 23. to 25. c. 4. 1, 2. 1 Tim. 6. 1, 2. 1 Pet. 2. 18. c. 3. 1, 2, 3. 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, hee hath left it arbitrary and indefinite, leaving every Nation and Country free liberty to elect such a publike politike forme of government, as themselves should judge most expedient for their publike good, and that mutable (since all humane things are so) as they should see just occasion, not prescribing any sempiternall, immutable forme of government to any particular Nations, Regions, much lesse to all the world.

Secondly, government in generall being thus of God, but the kindes of it thus left arbitrary to mens institution and free election; the particular governments in­stituted by any Nation for the better regulating of their lives, the preservation of humane society, and advancement of Gods glory, may be truely said in some sense to be of God, though instituted, invented by men. Not because God himselfe did im­mediately ordain or prescribe them by speciall command to all, or any one people: or because God himself did immediately ordaine or prescribe them by speciall com­mand to this, all, or any one people: but because hee by his generall or speciall pro­vidence did direct this Nation to make choyse of such a government, or gave them wisedome 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, Kingdomes, 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 onely 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; witnesse the subsequent words, By me Kings reigne, 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 yeelded; that all and every lawfull kinde of government, all lawfull Rulers and Magistrates of what fort soever are of Gods ordi­nation, and his ordinance, as farre forth as Monarchies are; and what is truely affir­mable of the one, is of the other too.

These generalls thus premised as indubitable; I say first of all: That Monarchy or regall power is not of God, nor yet Gods ordinance by way of immediate divine institution or speciall command from Gods owne free motion, as our opposites affirme it.

For first, God himself never immediately instituted a royall Monarchicall govern­ment in any Nation whatsoever, no not among his owne people; whose govern­ment was at first Josepbus Antiq. Jud. l. 4. c. 8. Carolus Si­gonius de Re­pub. Hecraeorum. l. 7. c. 5. Paternall and Patriarchicall; next Aristocraticall; then Regall; not by Gods immediate institution and voluntary designation; but by the peoples 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, Aristot. Po­lyt. l. 3. & 5. Po­lib. Hist. l. 6. Just. in Hist. l. 1. Cassanaeus Ca­talog. Gloriae Mundi pars, 5. Consid. 1. Philo­chius Archila­cus de Somnio Viridarii, c. 171. Fortescue c. 9. 13. 15. Mr. Seldens Titles of Ho­nour, part. 1. c. 2, 3, 4, 5. All Politicians, and Historians grant, that the originall crection of all Monar­echies was either by the peoples free consent and ordination; or by Tyranny and usurpation; or [Page 117] be conqest; none by divine institution or speciall command from God: And it must needs be so, because most Gen. 14. 1 Sam. 8. 5. Seldens Titles of Honour, part 1. c. 1. 2. See the Ap­pendix. kingdomes were primitively erected, either among Pagan Nations and States, who knew not God nor his Word, or among Christian States since speciall 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 himselfe, or by speciall command from his owne free motion: Till this be done, all their asseverations will be accounted fabulous.

Thirdly, if Regall power be Gods ordinance by way of divine immediate insti­tution and command; then this institution of Regall Monarchy, with the severall Prerogatives, and boundaries of it, would appeare in some Text of Scripture, and this government would be specially and perpetually prescribed either to all, or some particular Nations by God himselfe. But this institution, with the generall Pre­rogatives and bounds of Regall Authority, are no where extant in Scripture, neither this forme of government therein prescribed, but left arbitrary to all or any Nation in particular, for ought any man can demonstrate. Those Texts which con­cerne the Kings of the Israelites in point of soveraignty, and Prerogative, being ju­diciall onely, and peculiar to that Nation, nor morall, or extending unto others. Therefore it is not Gods ordinance by way of divine immediate institution, or command.

Fourthly, if it were of divine ordination in this sense; then the Regall power and authority of all Kings and Monarchs in the world should bee equall, yea the very same; and there should be no different kinde of Kings; as the divine authority of all Ministers (being of Gods owne institution by one and the same commission) is one and the same: But the regall power and jurisdiction of all Kings and Monar­chies in the world is not equall nor the same; for some have farre greater authority then others; there are many different sorts of Kings in the world, some onely annuall, others for life, others hereditary, others at will, deposible at the peoples pleasures when ever they offended, (Such were the Kings of the Procop. Vand. l. 1. Vandalls in Africk, of the Ammon. l. 2. c. 2. l. 4. c. 25. Hugo Grotius de Jure Belli. l. 1. c. 3. c. 58. 72. Gothes in Spaine; 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 conditionall, others absolute, as I have plentifully mentioned in the Appendix. Therefore they are not of divine ordination in the objectors sense.

Fiftly, If Kings were of divine ordination in this sense, then their kingdomes and people upon their Elections, Institutions and Coronations could not justly pre­scribe any conditions, oathes or covenants to them, upon promise of performance whereof they onely accept of them to be their Kings, refusing else to admit them to reigne over them; and such conditions, oathes, covenants, would be meere nulli­ties, since men have no power at all to detract from Gods owne divine institutions, or to annex any conditions or restrictions to them. But our Antagonists them­selves dare not averre, that Kingdomes and Nations upon their Kings Corona­tions, Institutions and elections may not lawfully prescribe conditions, oathes, and limitations to them, upon promise of performance whereof they onely submitted [Page 118] to them as their Soveraignes, it being the received practise of our owne, of all or most other Kingdomes whatsoever, See Part 1. p. 51 to 76. E­di [...]. 2. 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 Bracton l. 3. c. 9. Fleta l. 1. c. 5. 17. See here, p. 5. & part 1. p. 88. Lawyers and most Orthodox Divines determine, that Kings have no other just or lawfull royall Authority, but that which the Lawes and customes of their Kingdomes allot them, and that the Law onely makes them Kings, from which if they exorbitate they become Tyrants and cease to be Kings. Their Royall authority therefore is of humane institution properly, not Divine; from their people, who both elect, constitute them Kings, and give them all their regall Authority by humane Lawes enacted, not from God as the onely efficient cause.

Seventhly, All Kingdomes, Monarchies, Policies, are mutable and variable in themselves, while they continue such; yea, temporary and alterable into other formes of Government by publicke 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 humane earthly condition is still variable) to a Monarchicall or any other constant forme of government on­ly, much lesse for perpetuity without variation. Therefore, they are not of divine institution in this sense.

Eightly, St. Peter expressely defines Kings and Monarchies, in respect of their institution, to be humane creatures, or institutions, 1 Pet. 2. 13. Submit your selves to every ORDINANCE OF MAN for the Lords sake; whether it be to the King, as supreame, &c. And they are common to Pagans who know not God, as well as to Christians. Therefore, they are not simply divine, but humane Ordinances.

Ninethly, Our Antigonists will yeeld, that other formes of Government, whe­ther Aristocraticall, Oligarchicall, Democraticall, or mixt 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 Gods Ordinance, and Divine. Therefore Monarchy, Kings and Kingdomes are not so.

Tenthly, The very Text it selfe seemes to intimate, that Royalties and higher powers are not of God, by way of originall or immediate institution, or com­mand: for the Apostle saith not; that all powers whatsoever were originally in­stituted and ordained by God himselfe; 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 Gods generall or speciall providence, there God approves and orders them for the good of men.

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

First, They are of God, and his Ordinance, by way of imitation, as derived from Gods owne forme of Government, which is Monarchicall; Whence he is called, Psal. 86. 10 Deut. 32. 39. Isa. 37. 16. c. 44 6. 1. Cor. 8 4. Ephes. 4. 6. The only God, God alone, 1 Tim. 6. 15 6. 15. Rom. 17. 14. c. 19. 16. Deut. 10. 17. the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.

Secondly, By way of approbation; He Deut. 17. 14. 15, 16. 1 Sam. 8. 22. 2 Sam. 7. 12. approves and allowes this kinde of Govern­ment where it is received, as well as other formes.

Thirdly, by way of direction, he gives divers generall 2 Sam. 23. 3, 4. 1 King 11 11. 38 2 Chro. 9, 8. Prov. 31. 4 rules and directions to [Page 119] Kings (and to other Rulers and Magistrates also as well as them) in his sacred word how they ought to demeane themselves, towards him and their Subjects; and likewise 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2. 1 Pet 2. 13, 14. Rom. 13. 1 to 7. Tit 3. 1. to Sub­jects, how they should carry themselves towards their Kings; and all other Rulers and Governours temporall or spirituall: in which sense they may be properly said, to be ordered and ordained too, of God.

Fourthly, By way of speciall providence and incitation; God excites and moves some people to make choyce of Kings, and Monarchicall formes of Government, ra­ther than others; and to elect one man or family to that dignity rather than others, yea his providence mightily rules and swayes in the changes, the elections, actions, counsels, affaires of Monarchies, Kingdomes, Kings, States, to order them for his own glory, the Kings, the Subjects good or ill, in wayes 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 Gods; to be Gods Ministers and Vicegerents; to sit upon Gods Throne, and ought to reigne, to judge for God, and to rule Gods people according to Gods Word, with such justice, equity, integrity as God himselfe 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 peoples punishment, Job 34. 30. Hos. 13. 11. 1 Sam. 8. 18. In these regards (common to all other Governours and lawfull Governments, as well as Kings and Monarchies) Kings and Kingly Authority, are and may be said to be of God, and Gods 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 humane, not divine right, and authority.

As for the objected Scriptures to prove Kings jure Divino, Object. as Prov. 8. 15. By me Kings Reigne, &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 misdemeanours; the consequences thence in­ferred.

I answer, Answ. First, That this Text speakes onely of the promotion or Reigne of Kings; 2 Chro. 9. 8. Isa. 32. 2 c. 16. 5. not of the erections and power of Monarchies; and so doe 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 Reigne by Gods direction, according to his word, executing justice, and judgement, as he enjoynes them; But then it is not true of wicked Kings and Tyrants, who though they Reigne by Gods Providence or permission, yet they rule not by his word and will as he prescribes them.

Thirdly, If it be meant of the meanes and manner of Kings comming to their Kingdomes, as I conceive it is, and the Texts of Daniel perswade:

True it is: first, That some Kings Reigned and came to the Crowne by Gods im­mediate [Page 120] nomination and designation, as Saul, David, Solomon, Jeroboam, Jehu, and Hazael did: But that all, or most did heretofore, or now doe so, especially in Pagan Kingdomes, is a notorious falshood.

Secondly, it is true, That most lawfull Kings in hereditary or elective Kingdomes, come to their Crownes, and Reigne; though not by Gods immediate nomination, yet by his ordinary or speciall providence, (though it be untrue of Vsurpers, and Tyrants who come to Reigne by Treason, Murther, or other unlawfull meanes; and so by Gods See Doctor Willet, Paraeus, and others on Rom. 13. permission onely, rather than his providence: and then the sense of the place is but this; That Kings receive their Crownes, and Reigne by Gods generall, or more speciall providence: Which I thinke is the full and proper sense of the place. In this sense C. Plinius Secundus a heathen in his admirable Panegyrio to the Emper­our 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 sorte 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 Apologeticus. Ter­tullian thus seconds, speaking even of the Roman Pagan Emperours. 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 AEgyptians; Existimant non SINE DIVINA QUA­DAM PROVIDENTIA, pervenisse ad summam de omnibus Potestatem: So the Porphyr. Esses, hold this opinion, Non obtingit cuiquam Imperium sine Dei cura speciali: So Apud Cassi­odorwn. Vitigis, Omnis provectus, maxime Regius, ad Divinitatis munera referendus est: and Clemens Apostol. con­stit. l. 7. c. 17. Romanus, too. Regem timeto, sciens Domini esse electionem. Which Grotius de Jure Belli, l. 1. c. 3. sect. 8. confirmes with other Authorities; all concurring in this, That Kings and Emperours are such onely by the selfe-same PROVIDENCE OF GOD, by which they were men before they were Emperours; which gives them no greater Prerogative in respect of irresistibility in unjust exorbitant actions, then their being men, by the selfe-same providence of God, gave them before they were Emperours, as Tertullians words most clearely prove.

But what priviledge this alone should yeeld to Kings, more than to any other Ma­gistrates, Men or Beasts, for my part I cannot yet discerne. 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 kinde of Promotions whatsoever, Psal. 113. 7, 8. The Lord raiseth the poore 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 commeth nei­ther from the East, nor from the South; but God is the Judge; he putteth downe one and set­teth up another? Nay, doth not Christ informe us Mat. 10. 29 30. Luk. 12. 6, 7 That the very haires of our head are all numbred? That two sparrowes 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 Psal. 105. 27. to 32. Psal. 145. 14, 15, 16. Psal. 17. 27, 28. expressely re­solves) receive, enjoy their Lives, Honours, Offices, Estates, food, rayment, being, pre­servation, by Gods generall and speciall providence, as well as Kings their Crownes, Honours, Lives, Estates?

And is not the providence, yea are not the very Psa. 307. Psal 92. 11, 12. Act. 12. 7. to 18. Heb. 1. 14. Angels of God, who are all ministring spirits, sent forth to minister to them who shal 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 Rom. 2. 1. Acts 10 34. 1 Pet 1. 17. Deut. [...]0 17. Iob 34. 1 [...], 20. 2 Chron, 19. 7. Gal. 2. 6. Ephes. 69 Col. 3. 25. 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 it self no more exempt them from resistance, censures, deprivations, for their detestable publike crimes, then it exempts any other Nobles, Princes, Iudges, Magi­strates, Christians, or the meanest subiects 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 Gospell, if rightly qualified, are not made only such by Gods speciall Providence, but likewise by Divine institution from God himself; Nay, Tollet, Quest. 4 on Rom. 13. p. 580. See Cassanaeus, Catalogus Glo­riae Mundi, pars 4. Consid. 1. to 8. Willet, and many others on this very Text of the Romanes, make a difference between the civill and Ecclesiasticall 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 spirituall Power is immediatelly instituted by God, and no wayes 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 Gods Ordinance, and more jure Divino, then Kings; yea but few years since they all professed themselves to be as much, if not more, Gods anoin­ted, then Kings; and some of our Archbishop Laud and Neel, in the High Commission and Starchamber. Archest Prelates made publike 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 Bishopricks; though they never made good their promises: & to doubt, whether the Pope and his supreme Autho­ritie be iure Divino by Christs 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 Hereticall doctrines, oppresse, wound, slay, rob, plunder the people committed by God to their cares; or attempt with force to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties; or commit any capitall offences, they may not onely with safe conscience be resisted, repul­sed by their people, but likewise apprehended, arraigned, deprived, condemned, execu­ted, by Lay Iudges, 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 temporall Magistrates, notwithstanding any of the obiected 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 resistable, censurable, deprivable, and lyable to all kindes 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 Gods Ordinance, as that they should be universall over all the world, and no other Government admitted; or so as any one Nation whatsoever should be eternally tyed 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 Soveraign power in one family alone, as not to be able [Page 122] to transfer it to another, when the whole State shall see just cause: Hereditary King­doms being but Offices of publike trust for the peoples good and safety, as well as elective; most of them were elective at first, and Foxius de Rege, &c. p. 17. Grotius de iu­re Belli, l. 1. c. 3. n. 10. made hereditary onely either by vio­lent usurpation, or the peoples voluntary assents and institution, and not by any imme­diate divine Authority, and so alterable by their joynt assents, as Explan. Ar­tic. 42. Zuinglius, De Iure Reg. apud Scotos. Buchanon, De Rege & Regis Instit. l 1. c. 4. to 8. Mariana observe, and the Histories of most Kingdoms, the experi­ence of all ages evidence. Which truths being generally confessed by all Arist Polit. l. 3. & 5. Polyb. Hist l. 6. Gen. Haest. of France, Spain, Hunga­ry, Bohemia, England. Grotius de iure Belli, l. 1. c. 4. n. 7 Covaru. Quaest. Illustr. T. 2. 396, n. 2. 4. Vasquries Contr. Illustr. 59. n. 8. 61. n. 22 100. n. 29. Hookers Eccles. Pol: l. 1. see. 10. p. 69. 70, 71. Polititi­ans, 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 finde all Monarchies upon the matter, to be meer humane Institutions, alterable still by that humane Power which did at first erect them, and subordinate still thereto, as the Creature to its Creator; and to be Gods Ordinance onely in regard of speciall pro­vidence, and the like, as other inferiour Magistrates, Rulers are, who may be justly re­sisted, altered, removed, censured, notwithstanding the objected Text. From which whiles some men earnestly presse, that every soul by Gods own Ordinance, ought to be subject to some publike civill power, (which See Scrip­ture and reason pleaded for de­fensive Arms, p 30, 31, 32. others safely deny, fince the Patriarks, the first families of most Nations and Countries were not so, and all Nations, all peo­ple before setled publike 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, unlesse they see a necessitie, a great advantage, and that upon such terms and conditions as they deem meet,) they involve even Kings and Emperours themselves by Gods own Ordinance, in a subiection to a superiour earthly civill power, to wit, to their Laws, Parliaments, Kingdoms, (which I have proved Paramount them, col­lectively considered) according to the common proverbe Seneca Grotius de Iure Belli, l. 1. c. 4. sect. 6. p. 84. Omne sub Regno gra­viore Regnum est; and that of Eccles. 5. 8. 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 onely resistble by their whole Kingdoms the supreme Soveraign power, but likewise subiect to their Realms superiour commands, and uncapable to re­sist their lawfull power and Forces even in point of Conscience, by vertue of this very Text. And so much for the fourth Question.

For the fifth and last, See Paraeus, willet, Tollet, Soto, Marloras, and others on this Text. What kinde of resistance of the Higher powers is here pro­hibited? I answer briefly, That resistance is here forbidden, which is contrary to sub­iection 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 subiect to) the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. Quest. 5. In the Greek there are two distinct words used, [...], the Latine, English, French, Dutch use them both as one, without distinction: The first word signifies properly disordered, counter-orde­red, or ordered against, (as Paraeus, 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 sence 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. Iam. 4. 7. chap. 5. 6. 1 Pet. 5. 9. and applied indifferently both to a spirituall, corporall, and verball resistance of the Holy Ghost, the Devill, 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 [Page 123] (as Haymo, Tollet, Willet, Soto, and most other Interpreters observe) we Iudg 5. 2. 9. 1 Cor. 2. 3. 12. 1 Cor. 9. 17. 1 Pet. 5. 2. Philem 14. 1 Chron. 29. 6. 9 14. 1 Tim. 6. 18. Exod. 35. 21, 22. 29. 1 Chron. 28, 9. Psal. 100. 3. ought willingly and cheerfully to submit to the higher Powers, not only with our bodies, but soules and spirits too: I may hence cleerly inferre, that the resistance of the higher Power hee prohibited as contrary to this subjection, is not only that which is cor­porall and violent by force of armes, as the Objectors glosse it; but that likewise which is verball, mentall, spirituall in the soule it selfe without the body, and no more then a meer passive resistance, or not obeying: For not to doe what the higher Powers enjoyn, is in verity actually to resist, to withstand them; as not to doe the will, not to yeeld obedience to the motions, dictates of the Holy Ghost or de­vill is really to resist them, even in Scripture phrase: Yea, corporall resistance or op­position by way of force is only an higher degree of resistance, but not the onely or proper resistance here prohibited, which relates principally to the Soule and Spirit. For as corporall forced obedience against a mans will which still holds 2 Cor. 9. 7. out, is no true obedience in the esteem of God or men: and as the very essence, life of all outward obedience consisteth See (c) beso. 2 Cor. 9. 13. 7. Rom. 12. 8. 11. principally in the cheerfull submission or activity of the soule or will: So a forced corporall 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, soule, will; and is here principally forbidden, as is evident by the 5. verse; Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not onely for wrath (which relates only to the body, which mens wrath can only harm in case of disobedience, Mat. 10. 28.) but also FOR CONSCIENCE SAKE, which prin­cipally, if not wholly relates unto the soule, of which the conscience is a chief-over­ruling part. This then being altogether irrefragable, gives our Antagonists, with Dr. Fern, an eternall overthrow, and unavoidably demonstrates the resistance of the Higher Powers here prescribed, to be only of iust lawfull powers in their iust com­mands or punishments, which we must neither corporally, verbally, nor so much as mentally resist, but readily submit too with our very soules, as well as bodies: not of Tyrants or ungodly Rulers uniust oppressions, Forces, proceedings to sub­vert Religion, Lawes, Liberties, which all our Opposites, all Divines whatsoever grant, we are bound in conscience passively to resist, and disobey; yea, with our Tongues to Levit. 19. 17. Mat. 14. 4. Psal. 139, 21. 22 Pro. 29. 27. Ps. 11. 5. reprehend, and our Souls and spirits to oppose, detest, abhorre, hate in the very highest degree of opposition, notwithstanding this inhibition: And therefore by like reason are no wayes prohibited, but authorized by it, even forcibly to resist to our utmost power, have we meanes and opportunity so to doe, 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 corporall might and strength; especially if they have good opportunity, publike encouragements, and meanes to do it, as Deut. 6. 12. 1 Pet. 5. 9. Iude 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 Counsellors and Cavaleers, and no wayes submit unto them with their souls, minds, tongues, lest thereby they should approve and be partakers, with promoters of their execrable designes; therefore they may and must with safe conscience resist them with all their corporall might and strength, having now opportunity, a Parliamentary publike command and sufficient [Page 92] meanes to execute it. And thus have I now at last not onely most clearly wrested this sword out of the hands of our great opposite Goliahs, 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 againe.

Yet before I wholly take my leave of this Text to gratifie our Prelaticall Clergy, I shall for a parting blow adde this one observation more, That all our ( See Tosta­tus, Caictan, Cornelius a La­pide. Soto E­strus, with most Popish Com­mentators, & Dr. Willet on this Text, Bellarm. de Clericis, and the Canonists, de exemptionibus, & Immunit. Clericorum. Popish Cler­men her [...]tofore (and many of them till this day) notwithstanding the universality of this Text, Let every soule be subject to the higher Powers, &c. not only pretended them­selves to be of right exempted from the jurisdiction censures, taxes of Emperours, Kings, and a [...] Civill Magistrates,) Which priviledges some of our late Prelates be­gan to revive, as the late cases of Mr. Shervill, the Maior of Arundel, and some o­thers evidence, censured for punishing drunken Priests) but likewise held it lawfull to censure, excommunicate, depose even Emperours and Kings themselves, and inter­dict their Kingdomes; witnesse not only the Bp. Bilsons [...]ue Difference &c. par. 3. p. 369. to 376. Io. VVhites De­fence of the way c. 6. p. 14. to 22. Popes excommunications of many Emperours and Kings, by apparant usurpation and injury; but of sundry Prelates ex­communications of their own Soveraigns as of right and putting them to open penances; as K. Suintilla, Sancho, Ramir in Spain, and others elswhere, of which you may read di­vers presidents in my Appendix: The History of Theod. Ec­cles. hist l. 5. c. 17, 18. Sozom. l 7. c. c. 34. St. Ambrose his excommuni­cating the Emperour Theodosius for the bloody murther of those of Thessalonica, is so commonly known, that I need not spend time to recite it, nor yet the See Math. VVestm. Math. Paris, Hoved [...]n Polychron. Fab. Caxton, Polidor, Virigit, Holmsh. Slow, Grafton, Speed, Daniel in the Lives of Hen 2. K. Iohn and Hen. 3. excommuni­cations and censures of our King Iohn, or Henry the 2. and 3. Suano King of Den­mark (as Saxo-Grammaticus records) was not onely sharply reprehended, but ex­communicated in a most bold and solemn manner by one of his Bishops for his un­cleannesse, and murthering some eminent persons, of whom he was jealous, whiles they ‘ were at their devotions in the Church. Pag. 62. Ge. hist. of Spain. This Bishop instead of meeting this King when he came to enter into the Church, with accustomed veneration, clad in his Pontificalibus, with his Crosier S [...]affe kept him from entring so much as within the Court thereof; calling him not by the name of a King, which he suppressed, but a shedder of mans blood; and not content to chide him, he fixed the point of his Staffe in his brest, preferring the publike scandall of Religion before private society, not being ignorant, that the Offices of familiarity were one thing, the rights of Priesthood another thing, that the wickednesses of Lords as well as servants ought to be revenged, nor are Noble-mens crimes to be more partially censured, then ignoble ones: And not content thus to repulse him, he added an execration therunto and denounced a sentence of damnation against him in his presence, so as he left it doubtfull, whether he repulsed him more valiantly with his hand, or voyce. Hereupon the King considering this Act to proceed from zeale and publike severi­ty against wickednesse, and being confounded with the blush of his guilty consci­ence, forbad any to resist his violence, and patiently underwent, heard both his re­pulse and reprehention; After which, this King laying aside his royall Robes, put on old course apparell, desiring rather to testifie his sorrow by the deformity of his habit, then his contempt by the splendor of it. And struck with so sad a sentence of the Bishop, he would not indure to carry about the ornaments of Royall Mag­nificence; but casting away the ensignes of Regall Majesty, he put on sack-cloth the badge of penitence; putting off his power likewise together with his vestment, and of a sacrilegious Tyrant, became a faithfull reverencer of holy things. For [Page 93] returning bare-foot to the Church-porch, he cast himselfe prostrate in the entrance thereof, and humbly kissed the ground, suppressing the griefe which is wont most sharply to be inflicted from contempt, with shamefac'tnesse and moderation, re­deeming the fault of his bloody reigne with shame and penitence: After which confessing his fault, and craving pardon with teares of the Bishop, he was absolved, and then putting on his Royall Robes, admitted into the Church, and brought up to the Altar, to the exceeding joy of the people, who applauding the kings humi­liation and modesty; plus poenitentia pium, quam imperto scoelest [...]m [...] con­fessus:’ A memorable story of a zealous stout Prelate, and of a pen [...]tent submissive wild Prince: I shall only adde to this some few domestick president [...] of our Welch Kings S [...]elm Con­cil tom p. 381 38. [...] aodw n. Ca [...]al of [...]ish. Edit. 2 2. p. 328. Teudur king of Brecknock, for his periury and murther of Elgisti [...] another King of that Countrey, 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 Reliques on the ground, and depriving him [...] Christian communion, Whereupon Toudur unable to undergoe this malediction and rigorous iustice, with a contrite heart, and many teares powred forth, craved pardon of his crimes, and submitted himselfe to the penance imposed on him according to his qua­lity and greatnesse. Spelm Con­cil. p. 382, 383. 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 Countrey both of Baptisme and the Euch [...]rist. Whereupon the King unable to endure so great an excommunication, with great deiection submit­ted himselfe to the Bishop, and leaving his Kingdom, went on pilgrimage into for­raign parts for a long space; after which returning, by the intercession of king Mor­cant, he obtained absolution from the Bishop, to whose enioyned 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 almes; after which he bestowed divers Lands on the Church, Spelm. Con [...] p. 383, 384. Godw. Catal. of Bish. p. 523. Houell king of Gleuissig, contrary to his Oath & League, trecherously 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 Reliques from the Altar and casting them on the ground depriving him of all Christian communion, under which excommunication he remained almost a whole yeers space; After which, this king came bare-foot to the Bishop, im­ploring his absolution from this sentence with many teares, 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 sonne of Con­blus, till he came bare-footed with teares and prayed absolution; which upon perfor­mance of enjoyned penance, promise of future reformation, with prayers, fasting, almes, and the setling of some Lands on the Church, was granted him by the Bishop. So Spcim. Con­cil. p. 305, 385. 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 [Page 126] Brochuail, with his family convented before a Synode, threatned Excommunication, enjoyned Penance and satisfaction by the Synode, for some injuries offered to to Ciueil­liauc the two and twentieth Bishop of Landaffe. Goduin. Cata. log. of Bistr. p 527. Mauric King of of Glamorgan was excommunicated by Ioseph the eigth and twentieth Bishop of Landaffe, for treache­rously putting out the eyes of Etguin during the truce between them; After which he was again publikely excommunicated in a Synode, for violating the Sanctuarie 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 offence. Thus Spelmanim. Concil. Tau. 1. p. 626, 627. Goduin. Edit. 2. p. 528. 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, onely because one of the Kings followers being drunk, laid violent hands upon Bathutis the Bishops Physitian and Kinsman on Christ­mas day, Anno 1056. Whereupon all the Crosses and Reliques 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 for ever, free from all secular and royall services, in the presence of all the Clergie and people. So Mat. Paris. H [...]st. p. 551, 715 Goduin. catalo. p. 537. 547. Richard the tenth Bishop of Bangor, excommunicated David ap Lhewelin, Prince of Wales, for detaining his brother Griffith prisoner, contrarie 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 Englands hands. Many such presidents of Prelates censuring and excommunicating their Kings occur in Storie, which for brevity I pretermit; onely' I shall inform you, that Antiqu. Ec­cles. Bul. p. 245. See Walsingh. Hist. Angl p. 238. to 144. Iohn 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 Soveraign; There are two things by which the world is principally governed, The sacred Pontifi­call authority, and the royall 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 judgement, 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 faithfull Christians? Is it not known to be apart of miserable madnesse, if the son should endeavour to subjugate the Father, the servant the master to himself? The Canonicall authority of Scriptures testifieth, that diver. Pontiffs have excommunicated, some of them Kings, others Emperours: And if you require somewhat in speciall of the persons of Princes; Saint Innocent smote the Empe­rour 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 Millain, for afault which seemednot so hainous to other priests, excom­municated the Emperour Theodosius the great: From which sentence, having first given condigne satisfation, he afterwards deserved to be absolved; and many such like examples may be alleaged, 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 humane frailtie: For it is the duty of a good and religious Prince to honour the Priests of God, and defend them with greatest reverence, in imi­tation [Page 127] of the Pious Prince of most happy memory, Constantine, saying, when the cause of Priests was brought before him, You cannot be iudged by any, to wit, of the secular judges, who are reserved to the iudgement of God alone; according to the assertion of the Apostle ( very ill applied) saying, The spirituall man is iudged of no man, 1 Corinth. 2. 15. ( Not meant of Bishops or Clergie-men, but Saints alone, endued with Gods Spirit, not of judging in courts of iustice, but of discerning spirituall things, and their own spirituall Estates, as the Context resolves:) Thus and much more this Prelate, who notwithstanding this text of the Romanes, pleads an exemption of all Bishops and Priests from the kings secular power, by Divine Authority, and arrogates to Priest and Prelates, a iudiciary lawfull power over Kings themselves, to excommuni­cate and censure them for their offences. And to descend to later times, even since the the Reformation of Religion here, Iohn Bridges Dean of Sarum, and Bishop of Ox­fort, even in his Book intituled, The supremacy of Christian Princes over all persons thorowout their Dominions, in all causes so well Ecclesiasticall as spirituall, printed at London, 1573. p. 1095. writes thus; But who denies this ( M. Saunders) that a godly Bishop may upon great and urgent occasion, if it shall be necessary to edifie Gods Church, and there be no other remedy, flee to this last censure of Excommunication AGAINST A WICKED KING? Making it a thing not questionable by our Prelates and Clergie, that they may in such a case lawfully excommunicate the King himself: And Doctor Bilson Bishop of Winchester, in his True difference between Christian sub­iection and unchristian Rebellion, dedicated to Queen Elizabeth her self, printed at Oxford, 1595. Part. 3. Page 369. to 378. grants, That Emperours, Kings and Prin­ces, may in some cases be Excommunicated and kept from the Lords Table by their Bishops; and grants, That with Hereticks and Apostates, be THEY PRINCES or private men, no Christian Pastor nor people may Communicate: Neither finde I any Bishop or Court Doctor of the contrary opinion, but all of them readily sub­scribe hereto. If then not onely the ill Counsellors and Instruments of Kings, but Kings and Emperours themselves, may thus not onely be lawfully, iustly resisted, but actually smitten and excommunicated by their Bishops and Clergy, with the spiri­tuall sword, for their notorious crimes and wickednesses, notwithstanding this inhi­bition; (which Theod. Eccles. Hist. 1. 4. c. 5, 6. Valentinian the Emperour confessed; and therefore desired, that such a Bishop should be chosen and elected in Millain after Auxentius, as he him­self might really and cordially submit to him and his reprehensions, since he must some­times needs erre as a man, as to the medicine of souls; as he did to Ambrose, when he was elected Bishop there;) why they may not likewise be resisted by their Laity in the precedent cases with the temporall sword, and subjected unto the censures of the whole Kingdoms and Parliaments, transcends my shallow apprehension to conceive, there being as great, if not greater, or the very self-same reason for the lawfulnesse of the one, as of the other. And till our Opposites shall produce a substantiall difference between these cases, or disclaim this their practice and doctrine of the lawfulnesse of excommunicating Kings and Emperours, they must give me and others liberty to con­ceive, they have quite lost and yeelded up the cause they now contend for, notwith­standing this chief Text of Romaves 13. the ground of all their strength at first, Object. 10. but now of their ruine.

The tenth Dr. Fern Sect. 2. Appeal to thy Consci­ence. Objection is this, that of 1 Pet. 2, 13, 14, 15, 16. Submit your selves to every ORDINANCE OF MAN for the Lords sake, whether it be to [Page 96] The King AS SVPREAME, or unto Governours, as unto them that are sent by him (to wit, by God, not the King, as the distribution manifests, and Rom. 13. 1, 2, 3, 4.) For the punishment of evill doers, and for the praise of them that doe well, &c. Feare God, Honour the King; wee must submit to Kings and honour Kings, who are the supream Governours; therefore we may in no case forcibly re­sist them or their Officers, though they degenerate into Tyrants.

To which I answer; Answ. that this is a meerin consequent; since the submission here injoyned is but to such Kings, who are punishers of evill doers, and praisers of those that do well; which the Apostle makes the Ground and motive to submission; therefore this text extends not to Tyrants and oppressours, who doe quite contrary. We must submit to Kings when they rule well and justly, is all the Apostle here affirms; Ergo wee must submit to, and not resist them in any their violent courses to subvert Reli­gion, Lawes, Liberties; is meet non-sence both in Law, Divinity, and common Reason.

If any reply, Reply. as they doe, that the Apostle, vers. 18, 19, 20. Bids servants [...] sub­ject to their Masters with all feare, not onely to the good and gentle, but also to the froward: For this is thank-worthy, if a man for conscience towards God endure griefe suffering wrongfully, &c. Ergo this is meant of evill Magistrates and Kings, as well as good. Answ. I answer 1. That the Apostles speaks it onely of evill Masters not Kings; of servants, not subjects; there being a great difference between servants, Apprentices, Villaines, and free borne subiects, as all men know, the one being un­der the arbitrary rule and government of their Master; the other onely under the just, setled, legall Government of their Princes, according to the Lawes of the Realme: Secondly, this is meant onely of private personall iniuries, and undue corrections of Masters given to servants without iust cause, as vers. 20. For what glory is it, if when yee be BVFFETED FOR your faults, &c. intimates: not of publike in­iuries and oppressions of Magistrates, which indanger the whole Church and State. A Christian servant or subiect must patiently endure private undue corrections of a froward Master or King: See Heb. 12. 10. Matth. 5. 39, 40. Ergo whole Kingdomes and Parliaments, must patiently without resistance suffer their kings and evill Instruments to subvert Religion, Lawes, Liberties, Realms, (the proper deduction heen) is but a ridiculous conclusion.

Secondly, This Text enjoynes no more subjection to kings, then to any other Magistrates; as the words: Submit your selves TO EVERY ORDINANCE of Man; Or unto Governors, &c. prove past all contradiction; And vers 6. which bids us, Honour the King; bids us first in direct tearmes, HONOVR ALL MEN; to wit, All Magistrates at least, if not all men in generall, as such: There is then no speciall Prerogative of irresistability given to kings by this Text in injurious violent courses, more then there is to any other Magistrate or person whatsoever; God giving no man any Authority to injure others without resistance, especially if they assault their persons or invade their Estates to ruine them: Since then inferiour Officers, and other menmay be forc [...]bly resisted when they actually attempt by force to ruine Religion, Lawes, Liberties, the republike, as I haue proved, and our Antagonists must grant; by the self-same reason kings may be resisted too, notwith­standing any thing in this Text, which attributes no more irresistability or authority to Kings, then unto other Magistrates.

Thirdly, Kings are here expresly called; AN ORDINANCE OF 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 beleeve in their consci­ences, or date take their Oathes upon it; That ever any people or Nation in the world, or our Ancestors at first, did appoint any Kings or Governours over them, to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties; or intend to give them such an unlimited uncon­troulable Soveraignty over them, as not to provide for their own safety, or not to take up Arms against them, for the necessary defence of their Laws, Liberties, Reli­gion, Persons, States, under pain of high Treason, or eternall damnation, in case they should degenerate into Tyrants, and undertake any such wicked destructive designe. If not (as none can without madnesse and impudence averre the contrary, it being against all common sence and reason, that any man or Nation should so absolutely, irresistably inslave themselves and their Posterities to the very lusts and exorbitan­cies of Tyrants, and such a thing as no man, no Nation in their right sences, were they at this day to erect a most absolute Monarchie, would condescend to;) then clearly the Apostle here confirming onely 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 humane Ordinances) I shall infallibly thence in­ferre; 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 irresistably to act them, nor yet devested themselves (much lesse their posterity whom they could not eternally inslave) 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 illegall proceedings they continue private persons still, since they have no legall power given them by the people to authorize any such exorbitances.

Fourthly, The subjection here enjoyned, is not passive, but active, witnesse ver. 15. For so is the will of God, that by WELL DOING (to wit, by your actuall cheer­full submission to every Ordinance of man for the Lords 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 onely of lawfull Kings, of Magistrates in their just commands, whom we must actually obey; not of Tyrants and Oppressours 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 actuall disobedience to unjust commands, is actuall resisting of them. And that these Texts prescribing resistance tacitely, should apparantly 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 Supream 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, I. This Text calls Kings, not a Divine, but Humane Ordinance; If then Kings be the Supreamest Power, and above their Parliaments, Kingdoms, it is not by any Divine Right, but by Humane Ordination onely, as the Text re­solves.

Secondly, II This Text prescribes not any Divine Law to all or any particular States; [Page 130] nor gives any other. Divine or Civill 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 peoples joynt 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 onely 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 supreame: that is; where by the Ordinance of man the King is made supreame; not, where Kings are not the supreamest Power; as they were not among the See Bodin Common-weal l. 1. c. 10. l. 2. c. 5. Hugo Grotius de jure Belli. l. 1. c. 3. sect. 8 to. 13. & Annotata. ancient Lacedemonians, Indians, Carthaginians, Gothes, Arago­nians, and in most other Kingdoms, as I have Part. 1. & in the Appendix. elsewhere proved: To ar­gue therefore, We must submit to Kings where the people have made them su­preame; Ergo, All Kings every where are and ought to be supreame Jure divino; (as our Antagonists hence inferre) is a grosse absurdity.

Thirdly, III. This Text doth not say, That the King is the supreame soveraigne Power, as most mistake; but supreame Governour, as the next words; or Go­vernours, &c. expond it; and the very Oath of Supremacie, 1. Eliz. Cap. 1. which gives our Kings this Title, Supreame Governour within these his Realms. Now Kings may be properly called Supreame Magistrates or Governours in their Realms, in respect of the actuall 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 Soveraign Power, as the Romane Emperours, the Kings of Sparta, Arragon, and others; the German Emperours, the Dukes of Venice in that State, Bodin. Common-weal l. 2. c. 5. l. 1. c. 10. and the Prince of Orange in the Nether-lands, were and are the Supreame Magistrates, Governours; 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 alwayes constantly sitting, may properly be stiled, The Supreame Courts and Powers; but not the Supreame Magistrate or Governour: As the Pope holds himself, the Supreame Head and Governour of the Militant Church; and the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury stiles himself, the Primate and Metropolitane of all England; and so other Prelates in their Provinces; yet they are not the Soveraigne Ecclesiasticall Power, for the King, at least Generall Councells or Nationall Synods (which are not properly tearmed Governours, but Power,) are Paramount them, and may lawfully censure or depose them, as I have Parl. 1 p. 88. else­where manifested. To argue therefore, that Kings are the highest Soveraign Power, because they are the highest particular Governours and Magistrates in their Realms, as our Antagonists do; is a meer Fallacie, and Inconsequent, since I have pro­ved Par. 1. & the Appendix. our own, and most other Kings, not to be the highest Powers, though they be the Supreamest Governours.

Fourthly, IIII. This Text speaks not at all of the Romane Emperour, neither is it meant of him, as Doctour Fern [...], with others mistake; who is never in Scrip­ture stiled a King, being a Title extreamly odious to the Romanes, and for ever banished [Page 131] their State with an Livy Hist. l. 1. See the Ap­pendix. p. 3. 4. Oath of execration, by an ancient Law, in memory whereof they instituted a speciall annuall Feast on the 23. of February, called, Macrob. Sa­turnal. l. 1. c. 13. Seldens Titles of honour. part. 1. c. 2. sect. 2. p. 13. Regifugium; the hatred of which Title continued such, that Tully Aug. de Civ. Dei. l. 2. and Augustine write; Regem Romae posthac, nec Dii nec Homines esse patiantur: And Selden, ibid. Plutarchi, Iuli [...] Caesar, [...]atropias. Grimston in his life. Caesar himself being saluted King by the multitude, perceiving it was very distastfull to the States, answered, CAESAREM SE, NON REGEM ESSE: which Title of Caesar, (not King) the Scripture ever useth to expresse the Emperour by: witnesse Matth. 22. 17, 21. Mark 12. 14, 16, 17. Luke 2. 1. chap. 20. 22, 24, 25. chap. 23. 2. John 19. 12, 15. Acts 11. 28. chap. 17. 7. chap. 25. 8, 10, 11, 12, 21. chap. 26. 32. chap. 27. 24. chap. 28. 19. Phil. 4. 22. Which Texts do clearly manifest, that no Title was ever used by the Apostles, Evangelists, Jewes, to expresse the Emperour by, but that of Caesar, not this of King. Therefore Peters Text, speaking onely of the King, not Caesar, cannot be intended of the Romane Emperour, as ignorant Do­ctors blindly fancie.

Fifthly, V. This Epistle of Peter (the Gal. 2. 7. 8. Apostle of the Jews) was written onely to the dispersed Jews thorowout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bythinia, 1 Pet. 1. 1. over whom Herod at that time reigned as King, by the Romane Senates and Emperours appointment, who had then conquered the Jews, and made them a tributarie Province, as is evident by Matth. 27. 17, 21. Mark 12. 14, 16, 17. Luke 20. 22, 24, 25. chap. 23. 2. Acts 17. 7. chap. 25. 8, 10, 11, 12, 21. chap. 27. 24. chap. 12. 1. to 24. compared together; and by Ant. Iud. l. 17. c. 12. l. 18 c. 1. l 20 c. 9. & De Bel. Iud. l. 1. Josephus, the Century writers, Baronius, Si­gonius, and others. The King then here mentioned to be supreame, was Herod, or King Agrippa, or some other immediate Mat. 3 1. c. 27. 11. Act 25. 13. 24. 26 c. 26. 2. c. 12. 1. King of the Jews, who was their su­preame Governour, not absolutely, but Ant. Iud. l. 13. to 20. John 19. 12. under the Romane Senate and Emperours, and made so by their appointment, whence called in the Text; an Ordinance of man, not God: Now this King of the Jews (as is evident by Pauls Appeal to Caesar from Festus and King Agrippa, as to the Soveraign Tribunall; Acts 25. and 26. by Josephus, Philo Judaeus de legatione ad Caium, and the consent of all Historians) was not the absolute Soveraigne Power, but subordinate to the Romane Emperour and Senate, Ios. de Bel. Iud. l. 1 c. 10. 11. 12. 15. who both created, and bad power to controll, remove, and censure him for his misdemeanours; yet Peter calls him here Supreame, because the Highest Governour un­der them, as we stile our Kings See the Appendix. Supreame Governours under Christ. There­fore having a Superiour Governour and Power over him, to which he was account­able and subordinate; Supreame in the Text, cannot be meant, of a King absolute­ly Supreame, having no Power Superiour to him, but God; but onely relatively Supreame, in respect of under-Governours, there actually residing: whose Supre­macie being forcibly gained onely by conquest, not free consent; (and the ancient native Schickardus jus Regium. Heb. p. 7. Cunaeus de Rep. Haeb. p. 101 166. Kings of the Jews, being inferiour to their whole Senates and Congregations, and to do all by their advice, as Josephus Antiq. Jud. lib. 4. cap. 8. 2. Sam. 18. 3, 4. Jer. 38. 45. 1. Chron. 13. 1. to 6. attest) will no way advantage our Oppo­sites, nor advance the Prerogative of Kings; since it extends onely to the King of the Jews that then was, who was not simply Supream, but a Subject Prince sub­ordinate to the Romane State and Empire, and one appointed by a Conquerour, not freely chosen and assented to by the people. So as all the Argument which can hence be extracted for the absolute Soveraigntie and irresistibility of Kings over their whole Kingdomes and Parliaments, is but this. The King of the Jews was [Page 132] in Peters time the Supreame Magistrate over that Nation, by the Romane Senates and Emperours appointment, to whom yet he was subordinate and accountable; the Romanes having conquered the Jewes by force, and imposing this govern­ment upon them, without their consents. Therefore the Kings of England, and all other Kings are absolute Soveraigne Monarches, Superiour to their whole Par­liaments and Kingdomes, collectively considered; and may not in point of con­science be forcibly resisted by them, though they endeavour to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties: How little coherence there is in this Argument, the silliest childe may at first discern.

From these Scriptures, Objection II. I descend to Reasons deduced from them, against resist­ance, which I shall contract into three Arguments: The first is this; Bodin l. 2. c. 5 Bilson. part. 3. [...] An appeal to thy conscience, and many others. Kings are the Fathers, Heads, Lords, Shepherds of the Common-wealth; Ergo, They ought not to be resisted in any their exorbitant proceedings; it being unlawfull, unseemly, for a Son to resist his Father; the Members the Head; the Vassals their Lord; the Flock their Shepherd.

To this I answer: Answer 1. First, They are Fathers, Shepherds, Lords, Heads, onely in an improper, allegoricall, not genuine sence; therefore nothing can thence be properly inferred: They are and ought to be such in respect of their 2. Sam. 24. 17. Isa 49. 23. Ps 78 72 73. 74. Isa. 40. 11. c. 32. 2. to 18. Joh. 10. 9. to 19. loving and carefull affection towards their Subjects; not in regard of their Soveraigne Power over them: Therefore when their Tyrannie makes them not such, in regard of care and affection to their people; their people cease to be such, in regard of filiall, naturall, and sheep-like submission: When these Shepberds turn Ezek. 22. 27 Zep 33 Mat. 7. 25. Act. 20 29. Wolves; these Fa­thers, Step-fathers; the Subjects, as to this, cease to be their Sheep, their Children, in point of Obedience and Submission.

Secondly, 2. If we consider the Common-weal and Kingdom collectively; Kings are rather their Kingdoms children then Parents, because 1 Pet. 2 13. created by them, their pub­like servants, ministers, for whose benefit they are imployed, and receive Rom. 13. 6. wages; not their Soveraigne Lords; their subordinate Heads, to be directed and advised by them, not Tyrannically to over-rule them at their pleasure: Therefore Paramount, and able in such cases to resist them.

Thirdly, 3. Parishioners may, no doubt, lawfully resist the 2 John 10. 11 false Doctrines and open assaults of their Ministers, though they be their Spirituall Shepherds: Citizens the violent oppressions of their Maiors, though they be their Politique Heads: Servants the unjust assaults of their Masters, though their lawfull Lords; ( who may Littleton. sect. 19 4. & Coke Ib. p. 126. not misuse their very Villaines, by Law:) And if Parents will violently assault their naturall children, Husbands their Wives, Masters their Ser­vants, to murther them without cause, they may See Alb Gen. de Iur. Bel. l 1. c. 15. 16. by Law resist, repulse them with open force.

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

Fifthly, This is but the common exploded Argument of the Popish Clergy, To prove themselves superiour to Kings, and exempt from all secular Jurisdiction, be­cause they are spirituall Fathers, Pastors, Heads to Kings; who ought to obey, not judge, and censure them, as Antiq Ec­cles. Brit. p 245. Archbish. Stratford, and others argue. But this plea is no ways available to exempt Clergy men from secular Jurisdiction; from actuall resistance of parties assaulted, nor yet from imprisonment, censures, and capitall executions by Kings and Civill Magistrates, in case of capitall Crimes; Therefore by like rea­son it can not exempt Kings from the resistance, censures of their Parliaments, Kingdoms, in case of tyrannicall 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, Object. 12. Appeal to thy conscience, and others. The Invasions and oppressions of evill 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; Answ. First, The invasions of Forraign Enemies are See 1 Kin. 11. 14. to 41. 2 Chro. 33. 11. ca. 35. 1. to 21. Isai. 10 6. just Judgements, and punishments sent upon men by God; as were the invasions of the See Gildas de Excidio. Brit. Matthew West. Malmsbuzy, Huntingdon, and all our Chro­niclers. 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 sicknesse that threatens or invades our bodies, is commonly an affli­ction and punishment sent by God: Ergo, We must not endeavour to prevent or re­move it by Physick, but patiently lye under it without seeking remedy. Injuries done us in our persons, estates, names, by wicked men, who assault, wound, rob, de­fame us, are from 2 Sam 16. 10, 11, 12. 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 1 King cap. 11. & 12. Scripture too: Ergo, Kings ought not to resist or suppresse 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 Joan. Ca [...]not. lib. 4. Polycrat. c. 1. & Boch [...]l­lus Decreta, Ec­cles. Gal. l. 5. Tit 1. cap 5. p. 697. persecution of the Hunnes, their King Attila being demanded of by a religious Bishop, of a certain Citie? 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 sonne is scourged, and that the power of the scourge it self 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 bloudy Pagan Hunnes, because they are Gods wrath? I trow not. One Swallow makes no Summer; nor this example, a generall president to binde all men.

The third reason is this, Object. 13. Saints forcible resistance of Tyrants, begets civill warres, [Page 134] great disorders, and Dr. Ferne, Sect. 3, 4. and others. many mischiefs in the State: Ergo, It is unlawfull, and incon­venient.

I answer, Answ. First, That this doctrine of not resisting Tyrants in any case, is farre more pernicious, destructive to the Realm then the contrary; because it deprives them of all humane means, and possibilities of preservation; and denies them that speciall remedy which God and nature hath left them for their preservation: Laws, denyall 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 lawfull 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 humane bridle left to stay the Inundation of Tyranny in Princes or great Officers; and all Weapons, Bulwarks, Walls, Lawes, Armes will be meerly uselesse to the Subjects, if resistance be denyed them, when there is such cause.

Thirdly, Resistance only in cases of publike necessity, though accompanied with civill warre; serves alwayes to prevent farre greater mischiefs then warre it self can produce, it being the only Antidote to prevent publike ruine, the readiest means to preserve endangered, to regaine, or settle lost Liberties, Laws, Religion, as all ages witnesse; and to Seditiones non facit, sed tollit quieversorem Patriae, publicae­que disciplinae co­ [...]cerit, Vindi­ciae. contr. Ty­ran. p. 145. prevent all future Seditions and Oppressions.

Fourthly, Desperate diseases, have alwayes desperate remedies, Malo nodo, malus cuneus: When nothing but a defensive warre will preserve us from ruine and vassa­lage; it is better to imbrace it, then hazard the losse of all, without redemption. Ex duobus malis minimum. All Kingdoms, States in cases of necessity, have ever had recourse to this as the lesser evill; 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, Object. to which no such satisfactory answer hath hitherto been given, as might be.

The first and grandest Objection against Subjects forcible resistance, Authority 1. and defensive warre, 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 chiefe Authoritie, Answ. though it makes a great noise in the world, if solidly scanned, will prove but Brutum fulmen; a meer 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 Romane Emperours; but of resisting Valentine, and the Arms and Souldiers of the Gothes, who at that time See Orosius, Europius, Pau­lus Diaconus, Grimston, and others. over ran Italy, and sacked Rome, being mortall Enemies to the Romans, the Roman Empe­rours, Saint Ambrose, and Millain where he was Bishop.

This is evident by the expresse objected words: I can grieve, I can weep, I can mourn, (to wit for the wasting of my native Country Italy, by the Invading [Page 135] Enemies the Gothes:) against Armes, Souldiers, GOTHES (marke it) my tears are Weapons, &c. If any sequell can be hence properly deduced, it must be that for which the See Lucas Osiander En­chir Contr. cap. 9. de Magistra­tu. polit. 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 unlawfull for Christians to fight, or make so much as a defensive warre against invading Forraign 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 onely use prayers and teares.

This is the uttermost conclusion which can properly be hence deduced; which our Antagonists will confesse to be at least erronious, Anabaptisticall, if not Hereticall.

Secondly, 2. You must consider who it was that used this speech; Ambrose, a Minister, then Bishop of Millain; who by reason of this his function being an Ambassadour of Peace; had his hands bound from fighting with any other weapons, even against invading forraign 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 conceale. Prayers are my Armes: For such are the Defensive Armour 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 warres, Josh. 6. Upon which ground Gratian Di­stinct. 5. & Causa 23. qu. 8. Aquinas. 2. 2. qu 40. Artic. 2. Silu. de Bello, p 3. Grotius de Iur. Belli. l. 1. c. 5. sect. 4. p. 98. Nicetas Chro. l. 6. Divers Councells, Decretalls, Canonists, expresly prohibit, and exempt Priests and Bishops, from bearing Arms, or going to Warre, though many of them have turned See Walsen­gham. hist. An­gliae. p. 312. to 330. great Souldiers, and been slain in warres.

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 finde 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 spirituall; 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 Roger de Hoved. Annal. pa [...]s post. p. 768. to 778. Neubri­giasis, hist. l. 5. c 21. 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 spirituall, in that he had taken a Speare insteed of a Crosier; an Helmet in liew of a Miter; an Habergion insteed of a white Rochet; a Target in place of a Stole; an Iron-sword, insteed of a spirituall sword. After which, the King sent his Arms with this Message to the Pope: See whether this be thy sonnes Coat or not? Which the Pope beholding, answered; No [Page 136] by Saint Peter. It is neither the apparell of my sonnes, nor yet of my Brethren, but rather the vesture of the sonnes of Mars. And upon this ground Antiqu: Ec­cles. Brit. p. 299. 300. 10. E. 4. 6. Stamford, f. 153. 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 bloud.

This then being Ambrose his direct words and meaning, That he neither ought, nor could use any other Weapons against the invading Gothes, and their forces, but prayers and tears; See Io: Maior in 4. Scot. Dist. 15. 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 forraign Enemies. Ergo, The Priests and Ministers in his Majesties 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 unlawfull for the Parliament, or any Lay-Subjects by their command, to defend Religion, Laws, Liberties, against his Majesties in­vading forces, who intend by force to subvert them; is but ridiculous nonsence, which never once entred 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 forraigne Enemy: Ergo, None else may lawfully use them to withstand an in­vading adversary; Is a conclusion fitter for Anabaptists then Royallists, who may now with shame enough, for ever bid this authority adieu; with which they have hitherto gulled the ignorant World: And henceforth turn it against the Com­mission of Array, enjoyning Bishops, and Clergy men, to array and arme themselves as well as other men, as the Presidents cited in Judge Cooke 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, 3 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 corporall Arms, since they are as proper for them in cases of needfull defence, as these spirituall Arms are for Priests.

The second Authority is that of An appeal to thy consci­ence. p. 28. Grotius de Iure Belli, l. 1. c. 4. sect, 4. p. 83. Nazienzen. Authority 2. 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 adde 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. Answ. 1. First, that it is cleare by this, that Christians may use pray­ers and teares against Tyrants and oppressors.

Secondly, that these are the most powerfull prevailing Armes both to resist and conquer them. 2. 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, enjoyne men under paine of damnation to be sub­ject and obedient to for conscience sake, and no waies to resist; since they may resist them with the powerfullest armes of all others, prayers and teares.

Thirdly, 3. if they may be lawfully resisted with these most prevailing armes not­withstanding Pauls & Peters objected inhibitions, then à fortiori they may be with corporall, which are lesse noxious and prevalent; he that may with most successeful meanes resist, vanquish, and overcome his tyrannizing oppressing Soveraigne, may likewise doe it by the lesse noxious Armes. If Christians may repulse and subdue a Tyrant with their Prayers, Teares, then why not with their Swords? Doth God or the Scripture make any such distinction, that we may and must resist them under paine of damnation, with these kind of weapons; and shall it be no lesse 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 Praier, or with a Sword? with a Teare, or with a Speare? 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 wel as bearing Armes, and striking blowes; yea, the Statute of 1 & 2 Ph. & Ma. c. 9. makes certaine 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, The Chri­stians then sti­led Julian, Ido­lianus, Pisaeus, Adonaeus, Tau­ricremus, alter Hieroboam, A­chab, Pharao, &c. Nazian­zen, Orat. 47. & 48. in Iulia­num. as wel as to slay or leavy warre against them. If then we may, by the Objectors confession, the practises and examples of the Primitive Christians, against Iulian and others, fight with our Tongues, Prayers, Teares, Imaginations against our Soveraignes, who turne Tyrants and Persecutors; and thereby suppresse, conquer, confound them, of which none make scruple, though our Statutes make it no lesse then high Treason in some cases; then questionlesse they may by the selfe 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 wil, thought, prayer, teare: we may, yea must resist an oppressing, persecuting Tyrant with all these; therefore with any other Armes, meanes Exodus, Sa­muel, Kings, Chronicles, Numbers, Iudges and the Booke of Psalmes e­very where al­most.. 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 externall Armes. The Christians resistance and vanquishing their Emperour Iulian with the one, is an infallible argument, they might doe 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, teares, not armes.

Fourthly, 4. this Father saith not, that it was unlawful for the Christians to use any other weapons but teares against Iulian, the onely thing in question. No such sylla­ble in the Oration, but onely, that they had no other Armes to resist and conquer him with, being utterly destitute and spoyled of all other humane helpe. Therefore their [Page 138] want of other Armes and helpe, See Zozimen. l. 5. c. 2. Non Gentiles solum, &c. not the unlawfulnesse of using them, had they had them, was the onely ground they used prayers and teares, not armes. To argue then, those who are destitute of all Armes, but prayers and teares, must use them one­ly: Ergo those who have other Armes besides prayers and teares, may not lawfully use them to resist a Tyrant, is but Scholastical Nonsence; yet this is the very utter­most this authority yeelds our opposites. In one word, this Father informes us, that this Apostate Emperour Oratio. 1. in Iuli anum p. 760. Iulian, would not make open warre at first upon the Christians, because this would altogether crosse the end he aimed at: (marke 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 meanes of resistance left. Authority 3.

The third authority is that of Appeale to thy consci­ence, p. 28, 29. 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 unlawfull for Christians to resist with force of Armes.

I answer first, Answ. 1. Bernard was both a Monke and Clergie-man, prohibited by Scripture and sundry Canons to fight with military Armes against any person or enemy whatsoever; and he utters these words of himselfe, as he was a Clergie-man, servant, and sonne of the Church; in the selfesame sence as Saint Ambrose did before. It was then onely his Calling, not the cause which prohibited him forcibly to resist King Lewis.

Secondly I answer, 2. that this authority is so farre from prohibiting resistance of oppressing Princes, endeavouring with force of Armes to subvert Liberties, Lawes, Religion; that it is an unanswerable proofe for it, even in our present case: King Lewis to whom Bernard writes, had then raised a civil warre in his Realme 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, Ioab, legitur ex­probrasse; diligitis eos qui vos oderunt, Nota. & 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, imò 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 [Page 139] Counsellors.) Then immediately followes the objected clause, At quicquid vobis, &c. After which he gives him this sharpe reproofe. 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 Ps. 49. 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 Soveraigne with his Sword; fights strongly against and resists his violence with his Penne. 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 farre from yeelding obedience to and not resisting him, according to Pauls and Peters pretended injunctions, that he expresly tels 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 teares, though not with Sword and Buckler; which were more prevalent with God against him then any other Armes. So that he resists him in the very highest straine that may be; and clearely 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 doe it with prayers and teares, his proper Armes: 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 misdemeanours, notwithstanding that text of Rom. 13 which he there recites.

The fourth authority, Authority 4. is the example of the primitive Christians, who submit­ted themselves willingly to their persecuting Emperours; without resistance in word or deed. For proofe whereof, severall passages are recited out of Fathers, which I shal conjoyne: 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 hostes 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 [Page 140] semus â vobis, suffudisset utique damnationem vestram tot qualiumcunque amissio civium, imò etiam & ipsa institutione punisset: proculdubio expavissetis ad solitudinem vestram, ad silentium rerum, & stuporem quendam quasi mortui urbes quaesissetis quibus imperaretis. Plures hostes, quàm cives vobis remanisissent, nunc enim pauciores hostes habetis prae multitudine Christianorum, penè omnium civium. Which S. Cyprian (Tertullians imitator) thus seconds, Laedere Dei & Christi servos persecutionibus tuis desine, Ad Demetria­num liber. 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, Lib. 5. tantò & 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. De Civit. Dei, lib. 22. Saint Angustine 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 summe of all these Fathers sayings (which I have largely cited, because I would conceale 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 persecuters by force of Armes, did yet refuse to doe it, yeelding themselves up to any tortures, punishments, deaths, without the least resistance in word or deed; Ergo, the Parliament and Kingdome 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 stickes most with many Schollars, Answer. Statists, and tender consciences, I shall endeavour to give a satisfactory answer to it, without any shift­ing evasions, or questioning the truth of Tertullians, and Cyprians assertions, concer­ning the multitude and strength of the Christians, and their ability to resist, which some have taken Mr. Goodwin his Anti-cava­lierisme, Scrip­ture and Rea­son for defen­sive Armes. great paines to refute.

First, 1. then I say, that neither of all these Fathers say, That the primitive Chri­stians held it unlawfull, muchlesse damnable, in point of conscience for them to resist their persecuting enemies, no such syllable in any of them. And Tertullians, Si non apud istam disciplinam MAGIS OCCIDI LICET QUAM OCCIDERE, by way of necessary defence, implies no such thing, but rather proves the contrary, that resistance is lawfull, because it is lawfull to be slaine as a martyr; therefore in this case to slay. So as there is nothing in these authorities in point of conscience to condemne the Parliaments present resistance, and defensive warre, as unlawful:

Secondly, 2. they all seeme to grant, that the Christians deemed resistance even by force of Armes to be lawfull for them, though they used it not; no Text of Scrip­ture prohibiting, but allowing it, and these Fathers producing no one text which truly condemnes it; this being the very summe of their words. That though [...] [Page 141] Christians were exceeding many in number, of strength and power abundantly suffici­ent to defend themselves in a warlike manner against their persecuters, and had full liber­ty and no restraint upon them in point of Conscience either to withstand their persecutors with Armes, or to withdraw themselves from under the jurisdiction of their persecuters into remote parts, to the great weakning and losse of the State: yet such was their pati­ence, innocency, and desire of Martyrdome, that they resisted not their Adversaries with force, nor retired, nor fled away from under their obedience, but cheerfully without the least resistance by word, deed, or thought, yeelded up their Bodies, Liberties, Lives, to the cruelties of their Enemies, to obtaine that Crowne of Martyrdome which they desi­red, and to offer up themselves a voluntary freewill oblation to the Lord, who would cer­tainly avenge all their wrongs. This is the sum of all these Authorities, which evi­dence resistance lawfull in it selfe, and to these Christians too in their owne judge­ments and resolutions, though the desire of Martyrdome made them freely to for­beare it. These Examples and Authorities therefore abundantly corroborate, and no wayes impeach our cause.

Thirdly, 3. their examples of not resisting Persecuters, being rather voluntary, then enjoyned, out of a longing desire to be Martyrs, and an assurance of divine venge­ance to be executed on their Persecuters, is no restraint nor ground at all for other Christians, now not to use any forcible resistance, it being a grosse inconsequent to argue: The Primitive Christians voluntarily refused to defend themselves with force of Armes against their Persecuters, though they were not bound in point of Conscience from such resistance, and had both liberty and power to resist. Ergo, Christians in point of Conscience ought not to make any forcible resistance against oppressing Lords and Persecuters now: For then this their voluntary choice and election should deprive all following Christians of that ability of defence which both themselves then had, and since enjoy by Gods and Natures Law. Yet this is all the argument which can be ingeniously framed from these Authorities and Exam­ples; the absurdity whereof I shall thus further illustrate from like Precedents: We know, first, That See Socrat. schelast. Theod. Niceph. Ec­cles. Hist. Fox Acts and Monuments. Tertul. Apolog. & ad Martyres Cyprian ad Martyrer. the primitive Christians, out of a desire of martyrdome, not only refused to resist, but to flee away from their Persecuters, when they might safely doe it; some of them holding it unlawfull and dishonourable to flee in such a case; by name Tertullian, in his booke De fuga in persecutione. Will our Opposites from hence in­ferre: Ergo, it is unlawfull for Christians not onely to resist, but even to flee from their Persecuters, or his Majesties murdering, plundering Forces? Or for them selves to flee, not onely from the Parliaments Forces, but Justice too, as many of them have done, yea, made escapes against Law to flee therefrom. If the Christians not fleeing, binde neither them, nor us, not to flee now, why should their not resisting onely doe it? Secondly, See Fox Acts and Mo­numents, Vol. 1. passim. The Primitive Christians ran to the stake of martyr­dome, when they were neither accused, cited, persecuted by any, freely confessing themselves Christians, and rather desiring presently to die Martyrs, then live Christians, and repu­ting is worse then death not to be admitted to, or delaied the honour of being Martyrs, of which we have infinite Presidents in Ecclesiasticall Histories commonly known and over-tedious to recite. I shall onely instance in Julian the Apostates Nazianz. Orat. 47. [...] Chri­stian Souldiers: who being over-reached by him under colour of a largesse, to ‘throw some Frankincense into a fire secretly kindled by the Emperour in honour of an Idol, they dreaming of no such thing, and doing it onely as [...] [Page 142] plementall Ceremonie; as soon as they heard how the Emperour had over-rea­ched them, and given out speeches that they had sacrificed to his Idol, presently rising from the feast prepared for them, in a fury, inflamed with zeale and wrath, ran through the Market place, and cried out openly, Wee are Christians, Wee are Christians in minde; let all men heare it, and above all, God, to whom we both live and will also die. O Christ our Saviour, we have not broken our faith plight­ed to thee: If our hand hath any way offended, verily our minde followed it not at all; we are circumvented by the Emperours fraud with whose gold we are woun­ded. We have put off impiety, we are purged by blood. After which, posting speedily to the Emperour, and casting away their gold, with a generous and stre­nuous minde they exclaimed against him in this manner. O Emperour, we have not received gifts, but are damned with death. We are not called for our honour, but branded with ignominie. Give this benefit to thy Souldiers, kill and behead us unto Christ, to whose Empire onely we are subject. Recompence fire for fire; for those ashes reduce us into ashes. Cut off the hands which we have wickedly stretched out; the feet wherewith we have perniciously run together. Give gold to others, who will not afterwards repent they have received it; Christ is enough, and more then sufficient unto us, whom we account in stead of all. The Empe­rour enraged with this speech, refused to slay them openly, lest they should bee made Martyrs, who as much as in them lay were Martyrs; but onely banished them, revenging this their contempt with that punishment.’ Will it then follow from these memorable examples, That all true Christians now in England and Ire­land must come thus and offer themselves voluntarily to the Popish Rebels and For­ces (now in Arms to extirpate the Protestant Religion in both Kingdoms) or that the Members of both Houses must go speedily to Oxford to the King and his evill Counsellors, and there let them kill, hang, burne, quarter, slay, execute, torture them, subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, Parliaments, without the least resistance? Or will our Opposites hence conclude (as they may with better Judgement and Conscience doe) Ergo, all such persons voted Traitors and Delinquents in any kinde by both Houses of Parliament, ought now in point of Conscience (to avoid the effusion of blood and ruine of the Realm, through the civill warres they have occasioned) to lay down their Arms, and voluntarily resigne up themselves to the impartiall Justice of the Parliament, without any the least resistance for the future: If no such Doctrinall, or Practicall conclusions may be drawne from these their Precedents of voluntary seeking and rendring themselves up to the Martyrdome of their Opposites; then the unlawfulnesse of resisting cannot be inferred from this their non-resisting. Thirdly, how many cowardly Souldiers in all ages, and in this too, have voluntarily yeelded up Forts, Castles, Ships, Armes, Persons, to their invading approaching enemies without fight or resistance? How many persons have resigned up their Purses to high-way theeves, their Lands to disseisors, their Houses, Goods to riotors, their Ships, Estates, Persons, to Turkish and other Pirats, without any resistance, when they might have lawfully and easily preserved them by resisting? Will it therefore follow, that all others must do so? that we must not sight against invading Enemies, Theeves, Pirats Riotors, because many good Christians out of fear or cowardise, or for other reasons have not done it in all ages? I [...]ow not. Will the Jews refusi [...]g three Joseph. Amiq. Ju. lib. 12. cap. 13. lib. 13. c. 12. l. 14 c. S. Dion. Hist. 56. Strabo Greg. lib. 16. 1 Mac. 2. Dr. Heylea History of the [...], p. 1. [...]. or four severall times to defend [Page 143] themselves against their insulting enemies on their Sabbath; or the Francisci à Carthagena Regum. Hisp. Aeeph. c. 44. Gothes not resisting their invading foes on the Lords Day; or will the Alexandrian Jewes example and speech to Flaccus, Hugo Gro­tius de jure belli lib. 1. cap. 4. An­nos ad sect. 7. p. 95. & sect. 7. p. 88. 89. Inermes sumus ut vides, & tamen sunt qui nos tanquam hostes publicos hic criminantur. Etiam eas quas ad nostri tutelam partes dedit natura, re [...]rò vertimus ubi nihil habent quod agant, corpora praebemus nuda & patentia ad impe­tum eorum qui nos volunt occidere. Or that example of the Christian See Gro­tius ibid. 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 wayes prejudice our present resistance.

Fourthly, 4. the Christians not onely refused to resist their oppressing Emperours and Magistrates, who proceeded judicially by a kinde of Law against them, but even the vulgar people, who assaulted, stoned, slew them in the streets against Law, as Ter­tullians words, Quoties enim praeteritis à vobis SUO JURE NOS INIMI­CUM VULGUS invadit lapidibus & incendiis, &c. manifest without all con­tradiction; and indeed this passage so much insisted on, relates principally, if not onely to such assaults of the rude notorious vulgar, which every man will grant the Christians might lawfully with good conscience forcibly resist, because they were no Magistrates nor lawfull higher powers within Rom. 13. 1. 2. or 1 Pet. 2, 13, 14. Either then our Antagonist must grant, that it is unlawfull in point of Con­science forcibly to resist the unlawfull assaults and violence of the vulgar or pri­vate persons who are no Magistrates: and that it is unlawfull now for any Chri­stians to resist Theeves, Pirats, or beare defensive Armes, as the Lucas Ostand. Enchir. contr cap. 9. Anabaptists (from whose quiver our Antagonists have borrowed this and all other shafts against the present defensive warre) and so make the primitive Christians all Anabaptists in this particular: Or else inevitably grant resistance lawfull, notwithanding their examples and these passages of not resisting. The rather, because Tertullian in the next preceding words, puts no difference at all between the Emperour and meanest Subjects in this case; Idem sumus (saith he) Imperatoribus, qui & vicinis nostris malè enim velle, malè facere, malè dicere, malè cogitare de quoquam ex aequo vetamur. Quod­cunqne non licet in Imperatorem id n [...]c in quenquam.

Fifthly, 5. admit the Christians then deemed all forcible resistance of persecuters simply unlawfull in point of Conscience, as being a thing quite contrary to Chri­stian profession and Religion; then as it necessarily proves on the one side, That even Christian Kings, Princes, Magistrates, must in no wise forcibly resist the tu­multuous Rebellions, Insurrections, and persecutions of their Subjects, because they are Christians as well as Rulers, and in this regard equally obliged with them not to resist with Armes; much lesse then their Parliaments Forces lawfully raised for the publike defence. So on the contrary part it follows not, that there­fore resistance is either unlawfull in it selfe, or that the Parliaments present resist­ance is so. For first, such resistance being no where prohibited (as I have formerly proved) their bare opinion, that it was unlawfull to them, cannot make it so to them, or us in point of conscience, since God hath not made or declared it so. Secondly, the [Page 144] primitive Christians held many things unlawfull in point of Conscience, which we now hold not so. De corona Militis. Tertullian and others informe us, That the Christians in his time thought it a hainous sinne (Nefas) to pray kneeling on the Lords day, or be­tween Easter and Whitsontide (and so by consequence to kneele at the Sacrament) praying alwayes standing on those dayes in memory of Christs resurrection. Which cu­stome was ratified also by many Surius Con­cil. tom. 1. p. 347. tom. 2. p. 1052. tom. 3. p. 324. 277. Councels: Yet then it was lawfull no doubt in it selfe for them to pray kneeling, and we all use the contrary custome now. The Christians then held it unlawfull, to eat blood in puddings, or any other meats, as Apologet. Tertullian, Octavius. Minucius Felix testifie, and many Concil. Con­stant. 6. can. 76. Surius tom. 2. p. 1050. Councels expressely pro­hibited it since, as unlawfull: Yet all Churches at this day deem it lawfull, and pra­ctise the contrary. The Christians in Tertullians dayes, and he himselfe in a spe­ciall Book, De fuga in persecutione, held it unlawfull to flee in times of persecution, and therefore they voluntarily offered themselves to martyrdome without flight or resist­ance. Yet we all now hold flying lawfull, and all sorts practise it as lawfull; yea many more then they ought to doe. I might give sundry other instances of like na­ture: The Christians opinion therefore of the unlawfulnesse of any armed resist­ance of Persecuters publike or private (held they any such) though seconded with their practice, is no good argument of its unlawfulnesse, without better evidence, either then, or at this present. Thirdly, the case of the Primitive Christians and ours now is far different; The Emperours, Magistrates, and whole States under which they then lived were all Pagan Idolaters, their Religion quite contrary to the Laws and false Religions setled in those States: There were many Tertul. Apolog. Eusebi­us, Socrates, scolasticus, Hist. 1. Laws and Edicts then in force against Christian Religion, unrepealed: most Professors of Religion were of the lowest ranke, Cor. 1. 26. John 7. 48. not many wise, Noble, mighty men, scarce any great Officer, Magistrate, or Senator, was of that profession, but all fierce ene­mies against it: For Christians, being but private men, and no apparant body of a State, to make any publike forcible resistance in defence of Religion against Em­perours, Senators, Magistrates, Lawes, and the whole State wherein they lived, had neither been prevalent nor expedient; a great hinderance and prejudice to Religi­on, and as some hold, unlawfull. But our present case is far otherwise; our King, Parliament, State, Magistrates, People, are all Christians in externall profession, our Protestant Religion established, Popery excluded, banished by sundry publike Lawes; the Houses of Parliament, and others now resisting, are the whole body of the Realme in representation, and have authority, even by Law, to defend themselves and Religion against invading Popish Forces: In which regards our present resistance is, and may cleerly bee affirmed lawfull, though the primitive Christians, in respect of the former circumstances, might not be so. Secondly, their resistance, (especially of the Magistrates not vulgar rabble) if made, had been onely, singly for defence of their Religion then practised but in corners, pub­likely condemned, no where tolerated: Our present war is not onely for defence of our Religion established by Law, and to keep out Popery, but for the preserva­tion of Laws, Liberties, the very essence of Parliaments, the safety of the Realme, and that by authority of Parliament, the representative body of the Realme. The Parliaments defensive warre, therefore, upon these politicke grounds is just and lawfull, though the Primitive Christians, perchance in defence of Religion onely, as its case then stood, would not have been so: even as the Roman Senators and [Page 143] States resisting of Nero, or any other Tyrannicall Emperors violations of the Laws, Liberties, Lives, Estates of the Senate, people, were then reputed just and lawfull, though the Christians defence of Religion would not have been so esteemed in those times. And thus I hope I have satisfactorily answered this objection without shifts or evasions, and rectified these mistaken Fathers meanings, with which our Opposites have seduced the illiterate over-credulous vulgar.

I have now (through Gods assistance) quite run through all Obiections of moment from Scripture, Reason, Fathers, against the lawfulnesse of the Parliaments present de­fensive war, and discovered divers grosse errors, yea, Impostures in our Opposites writings, wherewith they have perverted many mens Consciences, and cheated the ignorant seduced world: I shall therefore here advise them in the presence of Al­mighty God, as they will answer the contrary before his Tribunall at the Day of Iudgement, seriously to consider these my answers, and publikely to retract those their Errors, false grosse mis-interpretations, perversions of Scriptures, Authors, which I have here discovered. And since they pretend nothing but their satisfying and keep­ing of a good Doctor Ferni Resolving of Conscience, An Appeal to thy Conscience, The necessitie of Christian sub­iection, &c. all plead conscience. Conscience in & by others, concerned in this Controversie; to shew a syn­cere ingenuous Conscience therein themselves where they have been mistaken, since the contestation pretended, is not for Victory, Time-serving, or Self-seeking; but for Truth, Gods glory, and the publike weal: and if I have over-shot my self in any thing, I shall promise them a thankfull acknowledgement, and ready palinedy upon their in­formation and conviction of any apparent oversights, I may casually fall into.

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

For personall Authorities, I shall not be ambitious to remember many, especially Papists, whose common, constant received opinion, and practise hath alwayes been and yet is, See part. 1. 1. p. 4. 6. That Subjects upon the Popes command alone, and absolution of them from their Soveraigns allegiance, may and ought to take up even offensive Arms against their owne naturall Princes excommunicated, interdicted, deposed, or onely decla­red contumacious, Schism [...]ticall or Hereticall by the Pope, without, yea, against their Kingdoms, Parliaments privities or consents, much more then with their appro­bation. What Papists have determined and practised in this very point you may read at large in Gratiau himself Causa. 15. Quaest. 6. and Causa. 23. in the very Oath of Supremacie, and Statut. of 3. Iacobi, ch. 4. which prescribes it, in Bishop Iewels view of a seditious Bull, in Doctor Iohn White his Defence of the way, Chap. 6. & 10. in Ab­bas Vspergensis, Sabellicus, Valateranus, Grimston and others, in the Lives of the Ro­man and German Emperours; in Aventinchis Annalium Boyorum, the Generall and Particular Histories of France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Sicily, Hungary, England; in Bishp Bilsons third part of the True Difference between Christian Subjection and unchristian Rebellion. In sundry Sermons on the fift of November, to which I shall refer you: Bochellus De­eret. Eccl. Gal. l. 5. Tit. 5. c. 8. 759. In Pope Paschal his letter to Robert Earl of Flanders, about the year of our Lord, 1107. exorting him to war against those of Leige, Henry the Emperour and his Assistants, wheresoever he should finde them, excommunicated and deposed as an Heretike and enemy to the Church; telling him, that he could not offer a more gratefull [Page 144] sacrifice to God, then to ware against them; concluding, Hoc tibi & Militibus this in peccatorum remissionem, & Apostolicae sedis familiaritatem praecipimus, ut his laboribus, & triumphis ad Coelestem Hierusalem, Domino praestante, pervenias: Which Letter was excellently answered by those of Leige. And in the Eochellus De­cret. Eccles. Gall. l. 5. Tit. 5. e. 5. p. 757, 758. Nich. Gilles Annals of France. Councel of Towres in France, under Lewes the twelfth, Anno 1510. it was unanimously resolved by the Church of France, That if the Pope did make war upon temporall Princes, in lands which they held not of the patrimony of the Church, they might lawfully by force of Arms resist and defend both themselves and other; & not only repulse this injury, but likewise invade the lands of the Church, possessed by the Pope their notorious enemy, not perpetually to retain, but to hinder the Pope from becomming more strong and potent by them, to offend both them and theirs. And that it was lawfull for such Princes, for such notorious hatred and unjust invasion to withdraw themselves from the Popes obedi­ence, and with armed force to resist all censures denounced by the Pope against them, their subjects and Confederates, and that such sentences ought not to be obeyed, but are mear nullities in law, which obliege no man. Yet I must inform you further in brief, that Iohn Maior a Popish Schoolman in Lib. 4. Sentent. ( as Grotius writes) affirms, That the people cannot deprive themselves of the power, not onely of resisting, but depo­sing Kings in cases which directly tend to their destruction; and that De Potest Papae in Prin­cipes Christ. l. 4. G. 16. Iohn Barclay, a late Scottish Priest, though a strenuous defendor of Princes Prerogatives, expresly averres, That if a King will altenate and subiect his Kingdom to another, without his subiects consents, or be carried with atrue hostile minde, to the destruction of all his people, that his Kingdom is thereby actually lost and forfeited, so as the people may not onely absolutely resist, and disobey, but depose him, and elect another King: to which De-lure Belli, l. 1. c. 4. sect. 10, 11. p. 89 90. Hugo Gortius a Protestant, freely subscribes; and Iohn Bodin alloweth of Sub­jects resistance, yea, deposing kings, insome Kingdoms absolutely, and in some cases ge­ner allyin all; De Repub. l. 1. c. 10. l. 1. c. 5 & l. 5. c. 5. & 6. For Protestant personall au­thorities; we have Huldericus Zuinglius, Explanatio Articuli, 40, 41, 42, 43. Tom. 1. fol. 82. to 86. who allows not only Subiects actuall resistance, but deprivation of Kings, Where Princes set themselves to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties; and that by the com­mon consent of the States in Parliament, from whom Kings originally receive their Royall power and authority. Martin Luther, Bugenhagius, Iustus Ionas, Ambs­dorfius, Spaelotinus, Melancthon, Cruciger, and other Divines, Lawyers, States­men, Anno 1531. who published a writing in justification of defensive Arms by subjects in certains cases; Sleidan, Hist. lib. 8. 18. 22. David Chrytraus, Chron. Saxo­niae, l. 13. p. 376. Richardus Dinothus de Bello Civili Gallico Religionis caeusasuscepto, p. 231. 232. 225. 227, &c. A book intituled, De Iure Belli, Belgici, Hagae, 1599. pur­posely justifying the lawfulnesse of the Low-countries defensive war. Emanuel Mete­ranus Historia Belgica, Praefat. & lib. 1 to 17. David Paraeus, Com. in Rom. 13. Dub. 8. And. Quaest. Theolog. 61. Edward Grimston his Generall History of the Ne­therlands, l. 5. to 17. passim. Hugo Grotius de Iure Belli & Pacis, lib. 1. cap. 4. with sundry other forraign Protestant Calvin Instit. l. 4. c. 20. sect, 31. & in Dan 6. v. 22. 25. O siander in Epit. Centur. 9. & 17. Sharpii Sympho. p. 244. 246, 412. Vindi­ca contra cyrannos. 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 See the un­gerding of the Scottish Armor, [...], 4. 32. 34. Scottish Pamphlets justifying their late wars: Ioh. Ponet once B. of Winchester, his Book intituled, Politick Govern. p. 16. to 51. Alber. Gentilis de Iur. Belli, l. 1. c. 25. l. 3. c. 9. 22. M. Goodmans Book in Q. Ma. dayes, intitu­led, How superior Magistrates ought to be obeyed, c. 9. 13. 14. 16. D. A. Willet his Sixfold [Page 145] Commentary on Romanes 13. Quaestion. 16. & Controversie, 3. p. 588 589, 590, 608, &c. Andin. l. Iud. 34, 55. Peter Martyr Com: In Rom. 13 p. 1026. with sundry late writers, common in every mans hands, iustifying the lawfulnesse of the present defensive War, whose Names I spare. And lest any should think that none but Puritanes have maintained this opinion, K. Iames himself in his Answer to Card. Perron, iustifieth the French Pro­testant taking up Defensive Arms in France. And The true Difference, &c. part. 3. p. 520, 521, 522. Bish. Bilson ( a fierce Antipuritane) not onely defends the Lawfulnesse of the Protestants defensive Arms against their So­veraign in Germany, Flaunders, Scotland, France; but likewise dogmatically de­termines in these words; ‘Neither will I rashly pronounce all that resist to be Rebels, Cases may fall out even in Christian Kingdoms, where the people may plead their right against the Prince, AND NOT BE CHARGED WITH REBEL­LION, As wherefor example? If a Prince should go about to subject his People to a forreign Realm, or change the form of the Common-wealth from Impery to Ty­rannie, or neglect the Laws established by Common consent of Prince and people, to execute his own pleasure. In these and other caeses which might be named, IF THE NOBILITY AND COMMONS IOYN TOGETHER TO DEFEND THEIR ANCIENT AND ACCVSTOMED LIBERTY, REGIMENT AND LAWS, THEY MAY NOT WELL BE COVNTED REBELS. I never denied, but that the People might preserve the foundation, freedom, and forme of the Common-wealth, which they fore prised when they first consented to have a King: As I said then, so I say now, The Law of God giveth no man leave; but I never said, that Kingdoms and Com­mon-wealths might not proportion their States, as they thought best, by their publike Laws, which afterward the Princes themselves may not violate. By supertour Pow­ers ordained of God, (Rom. 13.) we understand not onely Princes, BVT ALL PO­LITIKE STATES AND REGIMENTS; somewhere the People, some­where the Nobles, having the same interest to the sword, that Princes have to their Kingdoms, and in Kingdoms where Princes bear rule by the sword; we do not mean THE PRIVATE PRINCES WILL AGAINST HIS LAWS, BVT HIS PRECEPT DERIVED FROM HIS LAWES, AND AGREEING WITH HIS LAWES: Which though it be wicked, yet may it not be resisted of any subject, (when derived from, and agreeing with the Laws) with armed violence. Marry, when Princes offer their Subjects not Iustice, but force, and despise all Laws to practise their lusts, not every, nor any private man may take the sword to redresse the Prince; but if the Laws of the Land appoint the Nobles as next to the King to assist him in doing right, and withhold him from doing wrong, THEN BE THEY LICENCED BY MANS LAW, AND NOT PROHIBITED BY GODS, to interpose themselves for safeguard of equity and innoceucy, and by all lawfull AND NEED­FVLL MEANS TO PROCVRE THE PRINCE TO BE RE FOR­MED, but in no case deprived where the Scepter is Hereditary.’ So this learned Bishop determines in his authorized Book dedicated to Queen Elizabeth, point­blank against our Novell Court-Doctors, and Royallists.

But that which swayes most with me, is not the opinions of private men, byassed oft-times with private sinister ends which corrupt their judgements, (as I dare say most of our Opposites in this controversie have writ to flatter Princes, to gain or re­tain promotions, &c.) But the generall universall opinion and practice of all King­doms, Nations in the world from time to time. Never was there any State or King­dom [Page 146] under heaven from the beginning of the world till now, that held or resolved it to be unlawfull in point of Law or Coscience, to resist with force of Arms the Tyran­ny of their Emperours, Kings, Princes, especially when they openly made war, or exercised violence against them, to subvert their Religion, Laws, Liberties, State, Government. If ever there were any Kingdom, State, People of this opinion, or which forbore to take up Arms against their Tyrannous Princes in such cases, even for conscience sake, I desire our Antagonists to name them; for though I have dili­gently searched, inquired after such, I could never yet finde or hear of them in the world; but on the contrary, I finde all Nations, States, Kingdoms whatsoever, whe­ther Pagan or Christian, Protestant or Popish, ancient or modern, unanimously con­curring both in iudgement and constant practice, that forcible resistance in such cases is both iust, lawfull, necessary, yea, a duty to be undertaken by the generall consent of the whole Kingdom, State, Nation, though with the effusion of much blood, and hazard of many mens lives. This was the constant practise of the Romans, Greci­ans, Gothes, Moors, Indians, AEgyptians, Vandals, Spaniards, French, Britains, Saxons, Italians, English, Scots, Bohemians, Polonians, Hungarians, Danes, Swedes, Iews, Flemmins, and other Nations in former and late ages, against their Tyrannicall oppressing Emperors, Kings, Princes, together with the late defensive Wars of the pro­testants in Germany, Bohemia, France, Swethland, the Low-countries, Scotland, and elsewhere, against their Princes, (approved by Queen Elizabeth, king Iames, and our present king Charles. who assisted the French, Bohemians, Dutch, and German Pro­testant Princes in those Wars, with the unanimous consent of their Parliaments, Cler­gy, people) abundantly evidence beyond all contradiction; which I have more par­ticularly manifested at large in my Appendix, and therefore shall not enlarge my self further in it here: onely I shall acquaint you with these five Particulars.

First, that in the Slcidan. 8. 18. 22. Bish. Bilsons Diffe­rence, &c. part. 3. p 518. Chylrae­ [...] Chron. Sax. l. 13. p. 376, &c. Germanes Defensive Wars for Religion, in Luthers dayes, the Duke of Saxonie, the Lantzgrave of Hesse, the Magistrates of Magdeburge, together with other Protestant Princes, States, Lawyers, Cities, Counsellors and Ministers, af­ter serious consultation, coneluded and resolved, That the Laws of the Empire permit­ted resistance of the Emperour to the Princes and Subjects in some cases, that defence of Religion and Liberties then invaded, was one of these caeses; that the times were then so dangerous, that THE VERY FORCE OF CONSCIENCE AND NE­CESSITY DID LEAD THEM TO ARMS, and to make a League to de­fend themselves, THOVGH CAESAR OR ANY IN HIS NAME WOVLD MAKE WAR AGAINST THEM; That if the Emperour had kept his bonds and Covenants, they would have done their duties; but because he began first to make the breach, the fault is his: For since he attempteth to root out Religion, and sub­vert our Libertie, he giveth us cause enough TO RESIST HIM WITH GOOD CONSCIENE; The matter standing as it doth, we may resist him, as may be shew­ed by Sacred and prophane Stories. Vnjust violence is not Gods Ordinance, neither are we bound to him by any other reason, then if he keep the conditions on which he was created Emperour. BY THE LAWS THE MSELVES IT IS PROVIDED, that the inferiour Magistrate shall not infringe the right of the Superiour: and so like­wise if the superiour Magistrate exceed the limits of his power, and command that which is wicked, not onely we need not obey him, BVT IF HE OFFER FORCE WE MAY RESIST HIM. So they in point of Law and Conscience then pub­likely resolved.

Secondly, that the Gen. Hist. of France p 682, 683 The Ap­pendix, p. 34▪ 35. 44. 45. French Protestants, and others, in the reign of King Francis the second, Anno 1559. being much oppressed by the Guisian faction, who had got the K. into their power, and wholly swayed him ( as his Maj. ill Councellors sway him now) there upon assembling together to consult of some just defence, to preserve the just and an­cient government of the Realm. They demaunded advice TOVCHING LAW AND CONSCIENCE, OF MANY LEARNED LAWYERS AND DIVINES; who resolved, THAT THEY MIGHT LAWFVLLY oppose themselvs against the Government which the House of Guise had usurped, and AT NEED TAKE ARMS TO REPVLSE THEIR VIOLENCE; so as the Princes, who in this case are born Magistrates, or some one of them would undertake it, being ordered by the States of the Realm, or by the sounder part of them. Dinothus Hist. Gal. l. 48 p. 227. That defence of Religi­on and Liberties against violence and oppression were iust causes of Warre; Et quod pia arma ea sint, ultra quae nulla restat spesvitae nec salutis. A like resolution and determination was mado by the chief Dukes, Peers, Nobles, and Officers of France, Anno 1614. which you may read in the Appendix.

Thirdly, that the Fox Acts & Mon Vol. 2. Edit. ult. p. 208, 209, 213, 219. Angrognians and Waldensian Protestants of Lucerne and Piedment in the year 1558. to 1561, being persecuted by the Lord of Trinitie and their Popish Soveraigns, assembling solemnly together to consult how to prevent the great dangers then at hand, after long prayer and calling upon God for his grace and Spirit of direction and Counsell, well to manage their weighty affairs, and to preserve themselves and the Protestant Religion professed by them, concluded in the end, to enter into a so­lemn mutuall Covenant, and to ioyn in a League together for defence of themselves and their Religion; whereupon they all promised by Gods grace and assistance, to main­tain the pure preaching of the Gospell and administration of the Sacraments, and one to ayd and assist the other, &c. which they did with good successe, obtaining many glori­ous victories against invading persecuting enemies. The like did Fox Acts & Mon Vol. 1. Ed. ult. p. 848. to 852. Pontaut Bohemiae piae, lib. 1. Zisca, the Tha­horites and Bohemians heretofore, and of Grimstons Imperiall Hist. p. 655, 730. to 740, 746, to 806 sparsim. later times; as the Maginall Authors largely relate, resolving it iust and lawfull for them in Law and Conscience, to de­fend themselves and their Religion by force of Arms against their persecuting So­veraignes.

Fourthly, that the Erman. Mes teranus, Hist. Belgica, Grimsi. Gen. Hist. of the Netherlands. Netherland Provinces, being oppressed in their Bodies, E­states, by the Duke of Alua and Spanyards Tyrannie, and in their Religion and Con­sciences, by the introduced Irquisition to extirpate Religion; did after serious delibe­ration, and consultation with learned men of all sorts, unanimously conclude and enter into a solemn Covenant to defend their Libities, Religion, Laws, by force of Arms, against the Spanish Tyrannie; as you may read at large in their Histories. And in the year 1572. The Prince of Orange and his Confederates, having levyed a goodly Ar­my to relieve Mons besieged by the Duke of Alua, caused this notable Grimstons Gen. Hist. of the Netherlands, l. 9. p. 369, 370. Protestation to be printed and published to the World, as well in his own name, as in his Confederates, giving a reason of the Arms which he had taken up, as followeth.

Wee William by the Grace of God, Prince of Orange, Earle of Nassau, &c. To all No­ble-men, Knights, Gentlemen, and others, of what quality soever of these Nether­lands, which desire the Liberty thereof, being miserably tyrannized and oppressed by the Duke of Alva, the Spaniards, and other their friends, TRAYTORS AND MVRTHERERS OF THEIR OWN COVNTREY, We declare that everyone [Page 146] of us, for a particular love and zeale he beares unto his Countrey, and for the glory of God, which we desire above all, have often sought by all meanes the good and quiet of the Countrey, as well by Petitions and other mild meanes, as by force of Armes, thinking to draw those that were as we are, to doe the like, sometimes by sighes and prayers unto God, having had patience untill that it should please him to mollifie the hearts of the said Tyrants; but in the end solicited and called generally and particularly by the inhabitants of the said Countrey, by reason of the inhumani­ties and oppressions; We have in the Name of God (ACCORDING TO OVR CONSCIENCES) TAKEN ARMES; protesting before God and his An­gels, and before all Men present and to come, that we have not been moved hereunto by any private passion, but with an ardent desire which we have to oppose our selves against this more then barbarous and unsupportable tyranny, to the Proclamations, Edicts, taxes, Imposts and charges of the hundreth, thirtieth, twentieth and tenth pen­ny imposed by the insatiable covetousnesse of the Duke of Alva, against the Lawes Liberties, Freedomes, and ancient Priviledges of the said countrey; which Lawes, Liberties, freedomes and ancient priviledges, we mean (by the grace of God) to re­store unto the said countrey, holding it under the obedience of their Prince and na­turall Lord, as we are bound to do: affirming and maintaining, that gi Princepa Tyrannus est, [...]ure Naturali re [...]quis omnibus mundi Princi­pilius incumbit illi populo T­rannidem pati­enti open & cuxilium ferre; hominum egre­giorum virorum bas est vera laus, decus & benor. Vasquius Contro Ill. 36. [...] 36. all Princes and Noblemen, Gentlemen, Commonweales, or others, of what quality soever, be they strangers or home-bred, that have been moved to give us aide or assistance IN THIS SO IVST AN ENTERPRISE, have not don it for any other intent, but for true piety and compassion which they have with us of the said miseries and cala­mities: Wherefore we pray and entreat every one, both in generall and particular, to assure themselves, that we intend not to doe wrong to any man, nor to attempt upon the good estates or honour of any of what quality soever, were he of the Clergy, but are ready to aid and assist every one freely and willingly; as for his liberty, E­VERY ONE IS BOVND TO SVCCOR VS BY ALL DVE AND POSSIBLE MEANES. In the mean time we will give order, that God and the countrey may be served, in procuring the preservation of the people, and the de­fence of their houses, wives, and children: Praying to God, that he would favour and bring to a good end SO HOLY AND NECESSARY AN ENTERPRIZE.

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

Fifthly, Mytronimus Elanca Arage­nens. Rerum Comment. p. 661. 46 [...] [...] p. 652. (which comes neerest to our present case of any story I have met with) Alphonso the 3. king of Arragon, in the year 1286. through the ill advise of some bad Counsellors and Courtiers about him, departed in discontent from the Parliament of the Estates of Arragon then assembled at Saragossa, and posted to Osca, because the Parliaments took upon them to make Lawes to reforme and order his Court, his Courti­ers, which he denyed, but they affirmed, they had just right and power to doe. Here­upon, the businesse being put unto greater difficulty; the Estates affirmed. A Comitiis intempestive discedere Regi NEFAS ESSE, That IT WAS A WICKED ACT, FOR THE KING THVS VNSEASONABLY TO DEPART FROM THE PARLIAMENT; NEITHER WAS SO GREAT. A BREACH OF THEIR PRIVILEDGES AND RIGHTS TO BE PATIENTLY ENDVRED: [Page 147] Whereupon they presently raised up the Name and FORCES OF THE VNI­ON or Association ( formerly made and entred into between the Nobility, Cities, and people, mutually to aid and assist one another to preserve the Peace and Liber­ties of the Realm, even with force of Armes) IT BEING LAWFVLL for the common cause of Liberty; Non Verbis solum, SED ARMIS QVOQVE CONTENDERE, not onely TO CONTEND with words, BVT ALSO WITH ARMES. Vpon this, king Alphonso desirous to prevent the mischiefs them present and incumbent, by advise of his Privy Counsell, published certaine good Edicts at Osca for regulating his Court, Counsell, Iudges, Officers; by which he thought to have ended all this Controversie, but because they were promulged onely by the Kings own Edict, not by the whole Parliament as binding Lawes, they still proceeded in the Vnion; till at last, after various events of things, this King returning to the Generall Assembly, and Parliament of the Estates at Saragossa, in the year 1287 condessended to their desires, and confirmed the two memorable priviledges of the Vnion, with the So­veraign power of the Iustice of Aragon, which could controll their very Kings: Of which see more in the Appendix.

I shall close up this of the lawfulnesse of a necessary defensive warre, with the speech of the Emperour Alexander Seuerus, recorded by Quoted by Grotius de Iure Belli 2. [...] 1. Annos ad sect. 14. p. 11. Herodian, l. 5. He who first infers injuries hath no probable colour; but he that repulseth those who are trouble­some to him; EX BONA CONSCENTIA sumit fiduciam; assumes confidence FROM A GOOD CONSCIENCE, and good hope of successe is present with him from hence, that he offers not injury, but removes it.

Thus have I now at last waded thorow this weighty controversie, of the lawful­nesse both in point of Law and Conscience, of the Parliaments present, and all other sub­jects necessary Defensive Warres against their Soveraigns, who invade their lawes li­berties, Religion, Government, to subvert them, by open force of Armes: in which I have freely and impartially discharged my conscience, not out of any turbulent, sedi­tious, or disloyall intention, to forment or perpetuate the present, or raise any future destructive, unnaturall warres between king, Parliament, and People, or to counte­nance, to encourage any tumultuous, rebellious, factious, ambitious, traiterous spi­rits to mutiny or rebell against their Soveraigns for private injuries, or upon any false unwarrantable ends or pretences whatsoever; (let Gods curse and mens for ever rest upon all those, who are in love with any warre, especially a Civill, within their own dearest Countries bowels; or dare abuse my loyall sincere Lucubrations to any disloyall sinister designes, to the prejudice of their Soveraignes, or the States wherein they live:) but only out of a cordiall desire to effect such a speedy, honoura­ble, safe, religious, semplternall peace between king and Parliament, as all true Chri­stian English hearts both cordially pray, long for, and endeavour, by informing his seduced Majesty, his evill Counsellors, his Popish Malignant Forces, that if they will still proceed unnaturally and treacherously to make war against their Native Countrey, Religion, Lawes, Liberties, and the Parliament, (which to doe I have Part. 1. [...] 2. p. 108. to 112. elsewhere manifested to be no lesse then high Treason, Rebellion, against both King and Kingdome) they may in point of conscience and Law too, be justly opposed, re­sisted, repulsed, even by force of Armes, without any guilt of Treason, Rebellion, or feare of temporall or eternall condemnation, as publike Enemies, Rebels, Traytors to the Realm, whatevever they have hitherto been informed of to the contrary by tem­porizing [Page 150] Lawyers, or flattering illiterate Court Divines; and by assuring all such noble generous publike spirits, who shall willingly adventure their lives or fortunes by the Parliaments command, in the present necessary defensive warre, for the ends premised; that for this good service they shall neither in the Courts of Law, nor Con­science, incurre the least stain, or guilt of Treason, Rebellion, sedition, or any such like odious crime, much lesse eternall condemnation; the panick feare whereof, frequently denounced against them by many sottish Malignants, Royalists, ill-instructed Law­yers and Theologasters, hath frighted, kept back, and withdrawn multitudes from, yea cooled, corrupted many in this honourable publike duty, service, which they now owe of Right to God and their Countrey; in which to be treacherous, perfidi­ous, sloathfull, negligent, cold, uncordiall, or timerous (as too many hitherto have been, to the greater honour of those who haue been faithfull, actiue, Valiant, and sincere) especially now after so many late horrid treacheries most happily discouered and a new Couenant solemnly entred into, demerits a perpetuall brand of infamy and reproach. To dye fighting for ones dearest bleeding, dying Countrey, hath in all ages been honoured with a Crown of Martyrdome; to liue or dye fighting against it hath ever deserved the most capitall censures, ignominies, and heaviest execrations. Let both sides therefore now seriously ponder and lay all the premises close to their soules, consciences; and then I doubt not through Gods blessing, but a happy peace will speedily thereon ensue Isay 2. 4. Nation shall not lift up sword against Nation, Countrey against Countrey, Englishman against Englishman, Brother against bro­ther any more, as now they doe, neither shall they learn such an unnaturaall cursed kind of Civill Warre any more, but beat their swords into Plow-shares, and their speares into pruning hooks; and Rom. 16. 16. 1. 1 Thess. 5. 26. 1. Pet. 5. 14. greet one another with a kisse of holy peace and charity: Which desired end and issue of these present bloudy warres God in his mercy hasten and accomplish, to the joy of all our Soules.

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