The Sovereign Power of Parliaments and Kingdoms Part 3, Discourse 2 (4 of 4)

The Sovereign Power of Parliaments and Kingdoms Part 3 · Discourse 2 (4 of 4)

p. 129Fourthly, 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly, as the Text reſolves.

Secondly,II This Text preſcribes not any Divine Law to all or any particular States; p. 130nor 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 onelyonly 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 theaaSee 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 havebbPart. 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,ccBodin. 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 haveddParl. 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 eePar. 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 p. 131their State with an ffLivy 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,ggMacrob. 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 hhAug. de Civ. Dei. l. 2.and Auguſtine write; Regem Romae poſthac, nec Dii nec Homines eſſe patiantur: AndiiSelden, 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 onelyonly of the King, not Caeſar, cannot be intended of the Romane Emperour, as ignorant Doctors blindly fancie.

Fifthly,V. This Epiſtle of Peter (thekkGal. 2. 7. 8.Gal 2:7Gal 2:8 Apoſtle of the Jews) was written onelyonly 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 byllAnt. 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 immediatemmMat. 3 1. c. 27. 11. Act 25. 13. 24. 26 c. 26. 2. c. 12. 1.Matt 3:1Acts 25:13Acts 25:24Acts 25:26 King of the Jews, who was their ſupreame Governour, not abſolutely, butnnAnt. Iud. l. 13. to 20. John 19. 12.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, ooIoſ. 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 ppSee 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 onelyonly relatively Supreame, in reſpect of under-Governours, there actually reſiding: whoſe Supremacie being forcibly gained onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 p. 132in 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;xxBodin 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, onelyonly in an improper, allegoricall, not genuine ſence; therefore nothing can thence be properly inferred: They are and ought to be ſuch in reſpect of theiryy2. Sam. 24. 17. Iſa 49. 23. Pſ 78 72 73. 74. Iſa. 40. 11. c. 32. 2. to 18. Joh. 10. 9. to 19.2 Sam 24:17Isa 49:23Ps 78:72Isa 40:11John 10:9–19 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 turnzzEzek. 22. 27 Zep 33 Mat. 7. 25. Act. 20 29.Ezek 22:27Matt 7:25Acts 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 13.1 Pet 2:13 created by them, their publike ſervants, miniſters, for whoſe benefit they are imployed, and receive aaRom. 13. 6.Rom 13:6wages; 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 thebb2 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 ccLittleton. 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 mayddSee 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.

p. 133Fifthly, 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, aseeAntiq 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. ffAppeal 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 areggSee 1 Kin. 11. 14. to 41. 2 Chro. 33. 11. ca. 35. 1. to 21. Iſai. 10 6.1 Kgs 11:14–412 Chr 33:11Isa 10:6 juſt Judgements, and puniſhments ſent upon men by God; as were the invaſions of thehhSee 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 fromhh2 Sam 16. 10, 11, 12.2 Sam 16:102 Sam 16:112 Sam 16:12 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 ii1 King cap. 11. & 12.1 Kgs 11Scripture 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.Titus 1perſecution 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, p. 134great diſorders, andkkDr. 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 timellSee 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 p. 135Enemies 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 themmSee 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 onelyonly 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 groundnnGratian 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 ooSee 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 qqRoger 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 p. 136by 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 rrAntiqu: 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 ssAn 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.

p. 137To 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, ttThe 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, meanesvvExodus, 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 onelyonly thing in queſtion. No ſuch ſyllable in the Oration, but onelyonly, that they had no other Armes to reſiſt and conquer him with, being utterly deſtitute and ſpoyled of all other humane helpe. Therefore their p. 138want 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly: 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 EmperourxxOratio. 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 ofyyAppeale 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 onelyonly 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 p. 139Counſellors.) 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 zzPſ. 49.Ps 49ſi 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 p. 140ſemus 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,ccLib. 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.ddDe 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 takeneeMr. 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 … p. 141Chriſtians 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, ThatffSee 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 onelyonly to reſiſt, but even to flee from their Perſecuters, or his Majeſties murdering, plundering Forces? Or for them ſelves to flee, not onelyonly 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 onelyonly doe it? Secondly,ggSee 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 onelyonly inſtance in Julian the ApoſtateshhNazianz. 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 onelyonly as … p. 142plementall 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 threessJoſeph. 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. ….1 Macc 2 or four ſeverall times to defend p. 143themſelves againſt their inſulting enemies on their Sabbath; or the ttFranciſci 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, uuHugo 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 ChriſtianxxSee 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 theyyLucas 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 p. 144primitive Chriſtians held many things unlawfull in point of Conſcience, which we now hold not ſo.zzDe 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 manyaaSurius 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 bbApologet.Tertullian,ccOctavius. Minucius Felix teſtifie, and many ddConcil. 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 eeTertul. 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,ffCor. 1. 26. John 7. 48.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 onelyonly, ſingly for defence of their Religion then practiſed but in corners, publikely condemned, no where tolerated: Our preſent war is not onelyonly 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 onelyonly, as its caſe then ſtood, would not have been ſo: even as the Roman Senators and p. 143States 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 ggDoctor 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, hhSee 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 onelyonly 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 p. 144ſacrifice 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly abſolutely reſiſt, and diſobey, but depoſe him, and elect another King: to which kkDe-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.Dan 6:22Dan 6:25writers, 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 p. 145Commentary 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. AndllThe true Difference, &c. part. 3. p. 520, 521, 522. Biſh. Bilſon (a fierce Antipuritane) not onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 p. 146under 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: onelyonly I ſhall acquaint you with theſe five Particulars.

Firſt, that in the mmSlcidan. 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 onelyonly 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.

p. 147Secondly, that the nnGen. 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.ooDinothus 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 ppFox 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 qqFox Acts & Mon Vol. 1. Ed. ult. p. 848. to 852. Pontaut Bohemiae piae, lib. 1.Ziſca, the Thahorites and Bohemians heretofore, and ofrrGrimstons 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 ſſErman. 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 p. 146of 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 VSUS 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, rrMytronimus 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: p. 147Whereupon 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 onelyonly TO CONTEND with words, BVT ALSO WITH ARMES. VponUpon 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 onelyonly 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 ffQuoted 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 ttPart. 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 p. 150Lawyers, 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 hauehave 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 enſuexxIſay 2. 4.Isa 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 yyRom. 16. 16. 1. 1 Theſſ. 5. 26. 1. Pet. 5. 14.Rom 16:16Rom 16:11 Thess 5:261 Pet 5:14greet 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.

Finis Partis tertiae.