THE THIRD PART OF THE SOVEREIGN POWER OF PARLIAMENTS and KINGDOMS. Wherein the Parliaments present Necessary Defensive War against the King's offensive Malignant, Popish forces; and Subjects taking up Defensive Arms against their Sovereigns, and their Armies in some Cases, is copiously manifested, to be Just, Lawful, both in point of Law and Conscience; and neither Treason nor Rebellion in either; by impregnable Reasons and Authorities of all kinds.  
Together With a Satisfactory Answer to all Objections, from Law, Scripture, Fathers, Reason, hitherto alleged by Dr. Ferne, or any other late opposite Pamphleteers, whose gross Mistakes in true Stating of the present Controversy, in sundry points of Divinity, Antiquity, History, with their absurd irrational Logic and Theology, are here more fully discovered, refuted, than hitherto they have been by any: Besides other particulars of great concernment.  
By WILLIAM PRYNNE, Utter-Barrester, of Lincoln's Inn.  2 Sam. 10. 12. Be of good courage, and let us play the men for our People, and for the City of our God, and the Lord do what seemeth him good. Esther 9 1, 2. 5, 10. In the day that the enemies of the Jews hoped to have power over them, the Jews gathered themselves together into their Cities, through out all the Provinces of King Ahashuerus, to lay hand on those that sought their lives, and no man could withstand them; for the fear of them fell upon all people. Thus the Jews sinote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and slaughter and destruction; and did what they would with those that hated them; but on the spoil laid they not their hand. 
It is this eighth day of May, 1643. Ordered by the Committee of the House of Commons in Parliament for Printing, that this Book, Entitled, The third Part of the Sovereign Power of Parliaments and Kingdoms, be Printed by Michael Spark, signior. John White.  
Printed at London for Michael Spark, Senior. 1643.   

TO HIS EVER-HONOURED, NOBLE, KIND FRIENDS, THE Right Honourable Lord Ferdinando Fairfax, the Right Worshipful, Sir William Waller, and Sir William Bruerton, Knights, Commanders in Chief, of the Parliaments Forces, in several Counties.  
Deservedly Renowned Worthies,  
YOUR Incomparable Valour, Zeal, Activity, Industry for the preservation of Your Dearest Country, Religion, Laws, Liberties, and the very being of Parliaments, all now endangered by an unnatural generation of Popish and Malignant Vipers, lately risen up in Arms against them in divers parts of this Realm; and those many miraculous Victories with which God hath been lately pleased to Crown your cordial endeavours, to promote his glory and the Public safety, as they have justly demerited some grateful general Acknowledgements from the whole Representative Body of the State; so they may in some sort challenge a private gratulatory Retribution from Me, who have formerly had the happiness to participate in your Christian Affections, and now reap much Consolation by your Heroic Actions.  
Having therefore seasonably finished this Third part, Of the Sovereign Power of Parliaments and Kingdoms; copiously Vindicating, the Lawfulness, justness of the Parliaments present Necessary Defensive War (in which you have had the Honour to be employed, not only as Chief, but which is more, as most successful Commanders, in your several Countries,) in point both of Law and Conscience; and fully wiping off those black Aspersions, of TREASON and REBELLION, which the opposite party (really guilty of these crimes against both King and Kingdom, as I have 
* Part 1. Edit. 2 p. 108, to 1. 12.  elsewhere manifested, and here lightly touched) have out of Malice, Ignorance, or both conjoined, most injuriously cast upon your Loyal, honourable proceedings, which rejoice the souls of all true Philopaters', who cordially affect their Country or Religion; I could not, without much ingratitude, yea injustice, have published it to the world, but under the Patronage of your ever-honored resplendent names, who have so valorously, so successfully pleaded this Cause already in the Field, that it needs the less assistance from the Press.  
My many inevitable interruptions and straits of time in its contexture, which may happily detract something from its perfection; shall I hope, derogate nothing from your Honourable, Friendly acceptation; whom I have thus conjoined in the Dedication; because the Parliament hath united you in their present Warlike employments, and God himself jointly honoured you with success, even to admiration among the Good, indignation amidst Malignants, envy with the Malicious, and, I trust, to an active sedulous emulation in all your Fellow Commanders, employed in other Quarters in the selfsame Cause.  
Your present busy public, and mine own private Employments, prohibit me to expatiate; Wherefore earnestly beseeching the Glorious Lord of Hosts to be ever mightily present with your several Noble Persons, Forces, and to make you always eminently, active, Valorous, Victorious, as hitherto he hath done, till Peace and Truth, Tranquillity and Piety, by your several triumphant Proceedings, shall once more lovingly embrace and kiss each other in our divided unreformed, sinful Kingdoms; And till the effect of these just wars You manage, shall be quietness and assurance to us and our Posterities after us for ever; I humbly recommend your Persons, Proceedings to his protection who can secure you in and from all dangers of war, and rest,  
Your Honours, Worship's most affectionate Friend and Servant, WILLIAM PRYNNE.   

To the Reader.  
Christian Reader,  
I Who have been always hitherto a Cordial Desirer, endeavourer of Peace, am here necessitated to present Thee with a Discourse of War; to justify The Lawfulness of the Parliaments present taking up of necessary Defensive Arms. Which neither their Endeavours, nor my, with many others Prayers could (with any safety to our Privileges, Persons, Religion, Liberty, Realms, now forcibly invaded by his Majesty's Popish and Malignant Cavallieres) hitherto prevent, or conjure down.  
To plead the Justness of a War, of an unnatural Civil war, (the worst of any) of a War between the Head and Members, may seem not only a Paradox, but a Prodigy, in a Land heretofore blessed with an aged, uninterrupted Peace: And 
a Civilis Belli, l. 1. p. 1.  Lucan's Bella per AEmathios plusquam civilia Campos, etc. (now most unhappily revived among us) being but Historical, and Poetical; may pass the world with less admiration and censure, than this harsh Piece, which is both Legally & Theologically (like the Subject matter) polemical. But as the 
b Apud veros Dei cultores etiam ipsa bella pacata sunt; quae non cupiditate aut crudelitate, sed pacis studio geruntur Aug. de divers. Eccl. observ. 7. Gratian Caus. 23. qu. 2. cap. Apud. Albericus Gentilis de jure belli. l. 1. c. 5.  aim, the end of all just War, is and aught to be only future settled Peace; so is the whole drift of this Military Dissertation: not to foment or protract, but end our bloody Wars; which nothing hath more excited, animated, lengthened in the Adverse party, than a strong conceit, (if not serious belief,) that The Parliaments Forces, neither would, nor lawfully might in point of Law or Conscience forcibly resist or repulse their invasive Arms, without danger of High Treason and Rebellion, (which Bugbear I have here refuted, removed) and the In-activity, the much admired slowness of many of our Forces, in resisting, in preventing their vigorous Proceedings, which a little timely vigilance and diligence had easily controlled.  
It is a more than 
c Patriae deesse quoad vita supperat nefas est Livius, Rom. Hist. l 5.  Barbarous Inhumanity for any person, not to put to his uttermost strength, speedily to close up the mortal wounds of his bleeding, dying Native Country; but to protract its cure, to enlarge, increase its deadly Ulcers, Stabs, Sores, and make a lasting trade of War, out of a sordid, 
d Militare non est delictum sed propter praedam militare peccatum est. August. de Verbis Dom. Tract. 19 & Gratian. cause. 23. qu 1.  sinful desire of Gain, of Plunder, to raise a private fortune by the Republics ruins, (a sin, of which some perchance are guilty) is an unparallelled, most unnatural prodigious Impiety.  
It was thought a great dishonour heretofore, for men of Honour and Estates, not to serve and defend their Country gratis, as our own 
e See Littleton in his Chapter of Gran-serjanty, Knight-service, Escuage, & Cook ibi.  Lawbooks & Histories plentifully manifest: and shall such Persons now turn sordid Mercenaries; stir neither hand nor foot without their Pay; and be more diligent to get their wages, than discharge their Service? God forbid.  
It is 
f Numb. 32 Josh. 1. 12, to 18.  Recorded of the Children of Gad and Reuben, after they had recovered their inheritance on this side Jordan, that they went all up armed before the Lord over Jordan, at their own free cost, until they had driven out all the enemies in it before them, subdued the Land, and settled their brethren of the other Tribes peaceably in it. And shall not Englishmen of Estates do the like for their Brethren now, in these times of need, when money (the sinews of War) is almost quite shrunk up, by reason of former Disbursements and want of Trade? We read, 
g Judge 5. 19  That the very Heathen Kings of Canaan when they came and fought in Taanach by the waters of Megiddo, against the Israelites, THEY took NO GAIN OF MONEY, for their pains: Such was their Noble-generosity, which Deborah registers in her Song for their eternal Glory. And we hear of divers Lords and Gentlemen in the King's Army, which serve against their Country gratis; yea furnish out sundry Horse and Foot, of their proper cost; of few or none such there who receive any Pay. And shall these be more free, generous, active in serving, fight against God, Religion, Laws, Liberties, Parliament and their Country; than those of like Rank and quality on the Parliaments party are in warring for them? O 
h 2 Sam. 1. 20.  let not such anignoble, unchristian Report be ever once justly told in Gath, or published in the streets of Askelon, lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the sons and daughters of the uncircumcised triumph.  
I know there are some Heroic Worthies in the Parliaments Armies, of whom I may truly sing with Deborah, 
i Judg. 5. 9 18.  My heart is toward the Governors of Israel, that offered themselves willingly among the people; and who like Zebulon and Nepthali, have freely jeoparded their lives unto the death, in the high places of the field. Blessed be their Endeavours, and their Names for ever Honourable: I shall now only wish that others would imitate their laudable examples, that so our long-lingring wars, may be speedily and happily determined in a blessed, pure, pious, secure, honourable, lasting Peace. They are Tormentors, not Surgeons, Executioners, not true Soldiers, who desire, endeavour not speedily to close up and heal their dearest Countries bleeding, festering wounds; for which I have prepared this Treatise, as a Sovereign Balm, to incarn and cicatrize them, not ulcerate, or inflame them.  
It was the Prophet's Patheticke expostulation, 
k Jer. 8. 20. 22.  The harvest is past, the Summer is ended, and we are not healed: Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no Physician there? why then is not the health of the Daughter of my people recovered? It may be England's and Ireland's expostulation now: The Lord put it into the hearts of our great Physicians (the King, Parliament, and Grandees of both Armies) that they may now at last with bleeding, melting hearts and spirits, speedily pour forth such effectual healing Balms into these two dying Kingdoms deadly wounds, as may effectually cure and restore them to more perfect health and vigour than they ever formerly enjoyed, that so they may lose nothing but their putrid blood, their proud dead flesh, their filthy sanies and corrupt humours, by their unnatural stabs already received: Towards the advancement of which much desired cure, if these my undigested rude Collections (interrupted with sundry inevitable interloping Distractions, which may justly excuse their many defects) may add any contribution, or satisfy any seduced, or scrupulous Consciences touching this present War; I shall deem my labours highly recompensed; And so recommending them to God's blessing, and thy charitable acceptation, I shall detain thee with no further Prologue.  
Farewell   

THE SOVEREIGN POWER OF PARLIAMENTS & KINGDOMS: PROVING Is't.  
That the Parliaments present necessary Defensive War, is Just and Lawful both in point of Law and Conscience, and no Treason nor Rebellion.  
HAving in the two former Parts of this Discourse dissipated four chief Complaints against the Parliaments proceedings; 
Object. 5.  I come now in order (in point of time and sequel) to the 5th 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 traitorously taken up Arms, and levied war against the King himself in his Kingdom; and would have taken away his life at Keinton battle, which is no less than Rebellion and High Treason, by the Statute of 25. E. 3. c. 2. with other obsolete Acts; and by the Common Law. Which Objection, though last in time, is yet of greatest weight and difficulty, now most cried up and insisted on, of all the rest, in many of his Majesty's late Proclamations, Declarations, and in Anti-Parliamentary Pamphlets.  
To give a punctual Answer to this capital Complaint, 
Answ.  not out of any desire to foment, but cease this most unnatural bloody war, which threatens utter desolation to us if proceeded in, or not determined with a just, honourable, secure, lasting peace; now lately rejected by his Majesty's party. I say,  
First, 
1.  that it is apparent to all the world, who are not wilfully or maliciously blinded; That this Majesty first began this war, not only by his endeavours to bring up the Northern Army to force the Parliament, confessed by the flight, letters, examinations of those who were chief Actors in it; but by raising sundry forces under colour of a guard before the Parliament levied any.  
Secondly, 
2.  that the 
a See the Houses several Declarations to this effect.  Parliament in raising their forces had no intention at all to offer the least violence to his Majesty's person, Crown, dignity, nor to draw any English blood; but only to defend themselves and the Kingdom against his Majesty's Malignant invasive plundering Forces, to rescue his Majesty out of the hands, the power of those ill Councillors and Malignants who withdrew him from his Parliament, to bring him back with honour, peace, safety, to his great Council; (their General and Army Marching with a Petition to this purpose,) and to bring those Delinquents to condign punishment who most contemptuously deserted the Houses, contrary to Order, Law, the Privileges of Parliament, their own Protestation taken in both Houses, sheltering themselves, under the power of his Majesty's presence and Forces, from the justice of the Houses, and apprehension of their Officers, contrary to all precedents in former ages, in High affront of the privileges, honour, power of the Parliament, and 
* 13 E 1 c. 38 31 H. 6, c. 1. See Ashes Table, Contemp. 6, 7. the Law books 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  Fundamental known Law of the Realm: Since which time, his Majesty having (contrary to his former Proclamations and frequent Printed solemn Declarations) entertained, not only divers Irish Popish 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 Arm themselves, and raise Forces against the Parliament, and Kingdom, now in the field in all the Northern parts, Wales, and other places, (and that under the Pope's own consecrated Banner as many report) in defiance of our Protestant Religion, (designed by the Popish Party both at home and abroad, to no less than utter extirpation in England, as well as in Ireland, if not in Scotland too, (as some of them openly profess;) the Parliament are hereupon necessitated to augment and recrute their forces; as for the precedent ends at first, so now more especially, for the necessary defence of the Protestant Religion established among us by law; against which they (and all others who are not wilfully blinded) visibly discern a most apparent desperate conspiracy; which though not clearly perceived, but only justly suspected at first, doth now appear (all circumstances and agents considered) to be the very Embryo and primitive cause of this deplorable war; against which the Parliament and subjects are now more necessitated and engaged to descend themselves then ever, seeing they have by all possible means endeavoured to prevent this war at first, and since to accommodate it, though in vain, upon just, reasonable, and honourable safe terms for King and Kingdom. The sole Question then in this case thus truly stated will be.  
Whether his Majesty, having contrary to his Oath, Duty, the fundamental Laws of God and the Realm, raised an Army of Malignants, Papists, Foreigners; against his Parliament, Kingdom, People, to make an Offensive war upon them, to murder, rob, spoil, deprive them of their peace, liberties, properties, estates; to impose unlawful taxes by force upon them; protect Delinquents and evil Councillors against the Parliaments justice, and violently to undermine our established Protestant Religion; the Commonwealth of England legally assembled in Parliament; and all Subjects in such cases by Command and direction from both Houses of Parliament, may not lawfully and justly without any Treason or Rebellion, in point of Law and Conscience, take up defensive Arms to preserve the Privileges of Parliament, their Laws, lives, liberties, estates, properties, Religion, to bring Delinquents and ill Counsellors to condign punishment, and rescue his seduced Majesty out of their hands and power, though he be personally present with them, to assist and countenance them in this unnatural destructive war?  
And under correction (notwithstanding 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 unhappy controversy, it must direct the conscience.  
First, I have 
b Part 1. & 2. throughout.  already proved in Judgement of Law; the Parliament and Kingdom assembled in it, to be the Sovereign power, and of greater authority than the King, who is but their public Minister in point of civil justice, and General in matters of war, as the Roman Kings and Emperors were, and other foreign Kings of old and at this day are. The Parliament then being the highest power, and having principal right and authority to denounce, conclude and proclaim war, (as I have manifested in the debate of the Militia,) may not only lawfully resist, but oppugn, suppress all Forces raised against it, and the Kingdom's peace or welfare.  
Secondly, the principal end of the Kingdoms, original erecting Parliaments, and investing them with supreme power at first, was, to defend not only with good Laws and Council, but when absolute necessity requires (as now it doth,) with open force of Arms; the Subject's Liberties, Persons, Estates, Religion, Laws, Lives, Rights, from the encroachments and violence of their Kings, and to keep Kings within due bounds of Law and justice, the end of instituting the 
c 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 Dictator's among the Romans, the 
d 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 Arragonians; of Parliaments, Dietts, and Assemblies of the estates in other foreign Kingdoms, and in Scotland, as I shall prove at large in its 
e In the Appendix.  proper place. This is clear by the proceedings of all our Parliaments in former ages; Especially in King john's, Henry the third, Edward the 1. 2. 3. and Richard the seconds Reigns; by the latter Parliaments in King james his reign, yea of 3. Caroli, the last dissolved Parliament, and this now sitting, whose principal care and employment hath been to vindicate the Subject's Liberties, properties, laws, and Religion, from all illegal encroachments on them by the Crown and its ill Instruments: by the 
f Part. 1.  forecited resolutions of Bracton, Fleta, the Mirror of justices, Vowel, Holinshed, the Council of Basill, and others, that the Parliament ought to restrain and bridle the king when he casts off the bridle of the Law, and invades the Subject's Liberties, especially with open force of Arms in an Hostile manner: and by the constant practice of our Ancestors and the Baron's Wars, in maintenance of Magna Charta, with other good Laws and Privileges, confirmed by Parliament. If then the Parliament be entrusted by the Kingdom with this Superlative power, thus to protect the Subjects Liberties, properties, Laws, persons, Religion, etc. against the king's invasions on them by policy or violence: they should both betray their trust, yea the whole kingdom too, if they should not with open Force of Arms, (when Policy, Council, and Petitions will not do it) defend their own and the Subject's Liberties, persons, privileges, etc. against his Majesty's offensive Armies which invade them, intending to make the whole kingdom a present booty to their insatiable rapine, and a future vassal to his Majesty's absolute arbitrary power, by way of conquest.  
I read in 
g Commonwealth l. 3. c. 1 See Plut. Caes. & Pompeius.  Bodin that the Roman Senate being no way able to restrain Caesar, took their refuge to that ancient Decree of the Senate, which was commonly made but in dangerous times of the Commonweals. Videant consuls & caeteri Magistratus ne quid detrimenti capiat Respublica: Let the Consuls and other Magistrates fore see that the Commonweal take no harm. With which decree of the Senate, the Consul's being armed, suddenly raised their power, commanding Pompey to take up Arms and raise an Army against Caesar to oppose his violent proceedings by force who after his conquest of Pompey refusing to rise up to the Consuls, Praetors, and whole Senate, out of his pride, through his ill Councillors advise, and talking with them, as if they had been but private men, he so far offended both the Senate and people, that to free the Republic from his Tyranny, and preserve their hereditary Liberties, they conspired his death, and soon after murdered him in the Senate-house, where they gave him no less than 23. wounds. And 
h Aragonensium Rerum Com●●●. p. 724.  Hieronimus Blanca assures us, that the Suprarbiense Forum, justitia Aragoniae, or States of Arag●n, (erected to withstand the tyranny and encroachments of their kings) may by the Laws of their Realm assemble together, and RESIST THEIR KING WITH FORCE OF ARMS, as oft as there shall be need to repulse his, or his Officers violence against the Laws; For when they erected this Court, they said, It would be little worth to have good Laws enacted, and a middle Court of justice between the King and people appointed, if it might not be lawful to take up Arms for their Defence when it was needful; (being agreeable to the very Law of nature and reason;) Because than it will not be sufficient to fight with Counsel: For if this were not so, and the State and Subjects in such cases might not lawfully take up arms, 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 fundamental institution of Parliaments, now justly take up Defensive arms to preserve their Liberties, Laws, Lives, Estates, Religion. from vassalage and ruin.  
Thirdly, Our own Parliaments, Prelates, Nobles, and Commons in all ages (especially in times of Popery) as well in Parliament, as out, have by open force of arms resisted, suppressed the oppressions, rapines, unjust violence, and armies of their Princes raised against them; Yea, encountered their Kings in open Battles, taken their persons Prisoners, and sometimes expelled, nay deposed them from their Royal authority, when they became incorrigible open professed enemies to their kingdoms, their Subjects, seeking the ruin, slavery, and desolation of those, whom by Office, Duty, Oath, and common justice, they were bound inviolably to protect in Liberty and peace, as the 
* Part 1. p. 6, 7, 8, etc.  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 6th. (our British, Saxon, English Kings,) and other examples common in our own Annals, plentifully manifest. Neither are their examples singular, but all Kingdoms generally throughout the world in all ages have done the like, when their Kings degenerated into Tyrants, of which there are 
i See Arist. Polir. l. 5 c. 10 D t. Beards Theater of God's judgements. 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 Kingdoms have always reputed lawful both in point of Policy, Law, Religion, as warranted by the very Laws of Nature, Reason, State, Nations, God; which instruct, not only particular persons, but whole Cities and Kingdoms for their own necessary defence, preservation, the supportation of humane Society and Liberty, to protect themselves against all unlawful violence and Trranny, even of their Kings themselves, or their Ministers, to whom neither the Laws of God, Nature, Man, nor any civil Nation, ever yet gave the least authority to Murder, Spoil, Oppress, enslave their Subjects, or deprive them of their lawful Liberties or Estates; which resistance were it unlawful or unjust (as many ignorant Royalists and Parasites now teach) some few oppressing tyrannising wilful Princes, might without the least resistance, ruin, murder, enslave the whole world of men; overthrew all settled forms of civil government, extirpate Christian Religion, and destroy all humane Society at their pleasures; all which had been effected, yea, all States and Kingdoms totally subverted long ago, by ambitious Tyrannising lawless Princes, had not this Lawful, Natural, Hereditary power of resisting and opposing their illegal violence (inherent in their Parliaments, States, Kingdoms) restrained and suppressed their exorbitances of this kind. Now that this necessary Defensive opposition and resistance against open Regal Hostile violence, which hath been ever held lawful, and frequently practised in all Kingdoms, all ages heretofore, as just and necessary; should become suddenly unlawful to our Parliament, and Kingdom only, at this instant, seems very unreasonable unto me.  
Fouthly, It is the express resolution of 
k Polit. l. 5. c. 13. 11.  Aristotle, 
l Memorabil. l. 4. p. 813.  Xenophon, 
m Hist. l. 6.  Polybius, 
n Spelmani Concil. Tem. 1 p. 34.  Pope Elutherius, (in his Epistle to our first Christian King, Lucius) King 
o Lambard. Archaion. p. 130. Fox Acts & Mon. vol. 1. p. 214.  Edward the Confessor in his established Laws, c. 17. the 
P Lib cap. 1. 2 Surius Tom. 3. p. 383.  Council of Paris, Anno 829. and Isiodor cited by it; 
q Commonwealth. l. 2. c. 4, 5.  john Bodin, 
r De Rege et Regis Jnstit. l. 1. c. 5. 6.  john Mariana, and generally of all foreign Divines and Politicians, Pagan or Christian; yea of 
s Lib. 3. c. 9 fol. 107.  Bracton, 
t Lib. 1. c. 17:  Fleta, 
u De Laudib. Legum Angl. c. 9 to 15.  Fortescue, and 
x Speech in Parliament House, Anno 1609.  King james himself; that a King governing in a settled Kingdom, ceaseth to be a King, and degenerates into a Tyrant, so soon as he leaves to rule by his Laws; much more, when he begins to invade his Subjects, Persons, Rights, Liberties, to set up an Abitrary power; impose unlawful Taxes, raise Forces, and make War upon his Subjects, whom he should Protect, and rule in peace; to pillage, plunder, waste, and spoil his Kingdom; imprison, murder, and destroy his people in an hostile manner, to captivate them to his pleasure; the very highest degree of Tyranny, condemned and detested by God, and all good men. The whole State and Kingdom therefore in such cases as these, for their own just necessary preservation, may lawfully with force of Arms, when no other course can secure them, not only passively, but actively resist their Prince, in such his violent, exorbitant, tyrannical proceedings; without resisting any kingly, lawful royal Authority Vested in the King's person, for the 
Y Bract. l. 3. c. 9 Fleta l. 1. c. 17. Fortos. c. 9 to 15. Cook 7. Report fol. 5. 11. Calvin's Case. Rom. 13 4, 5. 1 Pet. 2. 14.  kingdom's preservation only, not destruction; because in, and as to these illegal oppressions, tyrannical actions, not warranted, but prohibited by the Laws of God, and the Realm, (to whom he is 
z See the Apendix.  accountable, and by whom he is justly censurable for them) he is no lawful King, nor Magistrate, but an unjust oppressing Tyrant, and a mere private man, who (as to these proceedings) hath quite denuded himself of his just Regal authority. So that all those wholesome Laws made by the whole State in Parliament, for the necessary preservation and defence of their Kings Royal Person, and lawful Sovereign power; the suppression of all Insurrections, Treasons, Conspiracies and open Wars against them, whiles they govern their people justly according to Law, (as all good Princes are 
a 2 Sam. 23. 3 2 Chro. 9 8 See the Kings Coron. oath,  obliged to do by oath and duty;) or the open violent resisting of their Lawful authority and Commands; to which all Subjects both in point of Law and 
b Row. 13. 1 2, 3. 1 Pet. 2 13. 14. Titus 3. 1  Conscience, ought cheerfully and readily to Submit; will yield no public Countenance, Encouragement, or Protection at all to Kings, in their irregall, tyrannical oppressions, or violent courses; especially when they turn professed public enemies to their people, proclaim open War against them, invade their Laws, Liberties, Goods, Houses, Persons, and exercise all acts of Hostility against them, as fatre forth as the most barbarous Foreign Enemies would do: It being against all common sense and reason to conceive, that our Parliaments, Laws which strictly inhibit and punish the very smallest violations of the public peace, with all kinds of Oppressions, Robberies, Trespasses, Batteries, Assaults, Bloodsheds, Frays, Murders, Routs, Riots, Insurrections, Burglaries, Rapes, Plunderings, Forceable Entries, Invasions of the Subject's Liberties or Properties, in all other persons, and greatest public Officers whatsoever (whose 
c Perniciosus de Repub etc. 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 heinous, execrable and censurable, 
d De Leg. Ang c. 9 10. 12, 13. 14.  as their persons, honours, and places are more eminent) should so far countenance, justify, or patronise them only in the King, the Supreme fountain of justice (ad tutelam Legis corporum & bonorum erectus, as Fortescue, and Sir 
e Lib. 7. f. 5, calvin's Case. c.  Edward Cook resolve; Cujus Potestas juris est, & non Injuriae; & cum sit author juris, non debet inde injuriarum nasci occasio, unde Iura naseuntur, as 
f Lib. 3. c. 9 f. 107.  Bracton, and 
g Lib. 1 c. 17.  Fleta determine;) as not to permit the Subjects, under pain of Rebellion and high Treason, by force of Arms, upon express command and direction of the whole Kingdom in Parliament, so much as to defend their Persons, Goods, Estates, Houses, Wives, Children, Liberties, Lives, Religion, against the open violence of the King himself, or his Malignant plundering, murdering Papists, Caveleers: When as Kings of all others (as 
h Lib 3. c. 9  Bracton, 
i De Laud legum Angl. c. 9 to 15.  For escue, and 
k De Rege & Regis Instit. l. 1. c. 9  Mariana prove at large) both by Oath and Duty, aught to be more observant of, and obedient to the Laws of God and their Realms (which are 
l Deut. 10. 17 Prov. 28. 21 Rom. 2. 11. Ephes 6. 11. 1 Pet. 1. 17.  no respectors of Persons) than the very meanest of their Subjects. That Precept then of Paul, Rom. 13. 1. 2. 3. Let every Soul be subject to the higher Powers, etc. And the Statute of 25. E. 3. c. 2. with other obsolete Acts, which declare it High Treason, to levy War against the King in his Realm, must needs be intended of, and qualified with these subsequent just limitations, suitable to their genuine sense and meaning; to wit, That as long, and so far forth, as Kings justly and uprightly do execute their just Royal power, conferred on them by God and their people, according to the Law of God, and their Realms, to the Protection, encouragement and praise of all their good Subjects, and the deserved punishment only of Malefactors; they must and aught to be cheerfully obeyed, and quietly submitted to, as Gods own Ministers, without the least resistance, private or public; neither ought any private men upon any private injuries, of their own authority to raise up in Arms against them, seeing they are public Magistrates in whom all the Kingdom have an interest, without the general assent and authority of the whole State and Kingdom, or of both Houses of Parliament which represents it. But if King's degenerate into Tyrants, and turn professed enemies to their Kingdoms, Parliaments, People, by making open War against them; by spoiling, murdering, imprisoning, maiming, sacking, destroying, or putting them out of their Protections, without any just or lawful grounds, endeavouring by force of Arms to subvert their Laws, Liberties, Religion, and expose them as a prey to their merciless bloodthirsty Soldiers; or bring in Foreign Forces to conquer them, (our present case;) I dare confidently aver, it was never the thought nor intention of Paul, or the Holy Ghost, much less of our Nobles, Prelates, and Commons in Parliament, which enacted these Laws (who so oft took up Arms, aswell offensive, as defensive, against our Kings, in such like cases heretofore) to inhibit Subjects, Kingdoms, Parliaments (especially, by direct Votes and Ordinances of both Houses) under pain of damnation, high Treason, or Rebellion, by defensive Arms to resist Kings themselves, or any of their Cavaliers: and if this question had been put to Paul, Peter, or any of those Parliaments, which enacted these objected Laws; Whether they ever meant by these Precepts or Statutes, totally to prohibit all Subjects, by general assent in Parliament, to take up such defensive Arms, or make any forceable resistance, against their Kings or their Armies, in such cases of extremity and necessity as these, under the foresaid penalties? I make little question, but they would have clearly resolved; that it was never so much as within the compass of their thoughts, much less their plain intention, to prohibit such a resistance, in this or such like cases, but only according to the precedent exposition of their words; and that they never imagined to establish in the world any Unresistable Lawless Tyranny, or any such spoil or butchery of Kingdoms, of Subjects, execrable to God and man, in all persons, all ages, which have 
* See Doctor Beards Theatre of God's judgements, l. 2. c. 13. to 42.  resisted them even unto blood; but rather totally to suppress them; There being scarce any more pregnant Text, against the Tyranny, the boundless Prerogatives, the illegal proceedings of Kings, and Higher Powers in all the Scripture, then that of Romans 13. 1. to 7. if rightly scanned, as Pareus, and others on it manifest. Therefore the Parliaments and peoples present defensive War, and resistance against their seduced King, and his Malignant Popish Cavaliers, is no violation of any Law of God, of the Realm; but a just necessary War, which they have to the uttermost endeavoured to prevent: and no Treason, no Rebellion at all within the meaning of any Law, or Statute, unless we should think our Parliaments so mad, as to declare it high Treason, or Rebellion, even for the Parliament and Kingdom itself, so much as to take up Arms for their own necessary preservation, to prevent their inevitable ruin, when they are openly assaulted by Royal armies; which none can ever presume they would do, being the very high way to their own, and the whole Kingdom's subversion.  
Fiftly, admit the King should bring in Foreign forces (French, Spanish, Danes, Dutch, or Irish) to destroy, or Conquer his Subjects, Parliament, Kingdom, (as some such forces are already landed, and more expected daily;) and should join himself personally with them in such a service, I think there is no Divine, Lawyer, or true hearted Englishman, so void of reason, or common understanding, as to affirm it Treason, or Rebellion in point of Law, and a matter of Damnation in Conscience, or true Divinity, for the Parliaments, Subjects, Kingdom, to take up necessary defensive arms for their own preservation in such a case, even against the King himself, and his army of Aliens; but would rather deem it a just, honourable, necessary action; yea, a duty, for every English man to venture his life, and all his fortunes, for the defence of his own dearest Native Country, Posterity, Liberty, Religion; and no less than a glorious 
m Gratian. Causa 23. qu. 1. 2. 3. Calvin. Lexicon. jurid Tit Bellum.  Martyrdom, to die manfully in the Field, in such a public quarrel: the very Heathens generally resolving; that 
n 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 quality. Whence that noble Roman 
o Liv Rom. Hist. l 5. sect. 51. p. 219.  Camillus, professed to all the Romans in a public Oration; Patriae deesse quoad vita suppetat, aliis turpe, Camillo etiam NEFAS EST. And is not there the self same equity, and reason, when the King shall raise an Army of Popish English, or Irish Rebels, Malignants, Delinquents, and bring in Foreigners (though yet in no great proporation) to effect the like design. If armed forceable resistance be no Treason, no Rebellion in Law or Conscience, in the first, it can be no such crime in our present case.  
Sixtly, I would demand of any Lawyer, or Divine: What is the true genuine reason, that the taking up of offensive arms against, or offering violence to the person, or life of the King, is High Treason, in point of Law and Divinity? Is it not only because and as he is, the head and chief member of the Kingdom, which hath a Common interest in him; and because the Kingdom itself sustains a public prejudice and loss by this War against, and violence to his Person? Doubtless, every man must acknowledge this, to be the only reason; for if he were not such a public person, the levying War against, or murdering of him, could be no High. Treason at all. And this is the reason, why the elsewhere cited Statutes of our Realm, together with our Historians, make levying of War, deposing, or killing the King by private persons, High Treason; not only against the King, but the REALM, and Kingdom to; Witness the Statutes of 5. R. 2. c, 6. 11. R. 2. c. 1. 3. 6. 17 R. 2. c. 8. 21. R. 2. c. 2. 4. 20. 3. H. 5. Parl. 2. c. 6. 28. H. 8. c. 7. 1. Mar. c. 6. 13. Eliz. c. 1. 3. jaco. 1. 2. 3. 4. and the Act of Pacification this present Parliament, (declaring those persons of England and Scotland TRAITORS TO EITHER REALM, who shall take up Arms against either Realm, without common consent of Parliament) which Enact, The levying of War against the Kingdom and Parliament, invading of England or Ireland, treachery against the Parliament, repealing of certain Acts of Parliament, ill Counselling the King, coining false Money, and offering violence to the King's person, to take away his Life, to be high Treason, not only against the King and his Crown, but THE REALM TO; and those who are guilty of such crimes, to be High Traitors and Enemies TO THE REALM, 
p Walsingh. Hist. Ang. p. 334. 335.  as well at to the King. Hence john of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, being accused in a Parliament held in 7. R. 2. by a Carmelite Friar, of High Treason, for practising suddenly to surprise the KING, and seize upon his Kingdom; the Duke denied it, as a thing incredible upon this very ground; If I should thus (said he) affect the Kingdom: 
q Walsing, hist Ang. p. 337.  Is it credible after your murder (which God forbid) that the Lords of this Kingdom, could patiently endure me, Domini mei ET PATRIAE PRODITOREM, being a Traitor both of my LORD and COUNTRY? Hence in the same Parliament of 7. R. 2. John Walsh Esquire Captain of Cherburg in France, was accused by one of Navarre, DE PRODITIONE REGIS & REGNI, Of Treason against the King and Kingdom; for delivering up that Castle to the Enemies; And in the 
r 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 Realm, for betraying and selling the Castle of Saint Saviour within the Isse of Constantine in France, 
s Walsing. hist Ang p 72. 76 91, 92. 105, 106.  to the French, for a great sum of money, when as he neither wanted Victuals, nor means to defend it: both which Accusations (being of Treasons beyond the Sea) were determined by Battle, and Duels fought to decide them. Hence the great 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 Reign likewise banished, condemned, and executed, as Traitors to the King and Realm, ET REGNI PRODITORES for miscounselling and seducing the King, and moving him to make War upon his people: Hence both the 
t Hall's Chro. 1 & 3. H. 4 f. 17, 22. Fox Acts & Mon. vol. 1. Edit. ult. Col. 676, 677.  Pierces, and the Archbishop of York, in their Articles against King Henry the fourth, accused him, as guilty of High Treason, and a Traitor both to the King, Realm and Kingdom of England, for Deposing and murdering Richard the second. And hence the Gunpowder Conspirators, were 
u 3 jac. c. 1, 2 3, 4. The King's Proclamations. 3 jacob. Against them, and the Arraignment of Traitors.  declared, adjudged, and executed as Traitors both to the KING & REALM, for attempting to blow up the Parliament House, when the King, Nobles, and Commons were therein assembled: If then the King shall become an open enemy to his Kingdom, and Subjects, to waste or ruin them; or shall seek to betray them to a Foreign Enemy (which hath been held no less than Treason in a King to do, who by the express resolution of 28. H. 8. cap. 7. may become a Traitor to the REALM, and thereupon forfeit his very right and title to the Crown;) it can be no Treason nor Rebellion in Law or Theologie, for the Parliament, Kingdom, Subjects, to take up arms against the King and his Forces, in such a case, when he shall wilfully and maliciously rend himself from, and set himself in direct opposition against his Kingdom; and by his own voluntary actions turn their common interest in him for their good and protection, into a public engagement against him, as a common Enemy, who seeks their general ruin. And if Kings may lawfully take up arms against their Subjects, as all Royalists plead, after they reject their lawful power, and become open Rebels or Traitors, because then as to this, they cease to be Subjects any longer, and so forfeit the benefit of their Royal protection: By the selfsame reason (the bond and stipulation being mutual; Kings being their Subject's 
* Cook 7. Report, calvin's case.  Liege Lords, by Oath and Duty, as well as they their Liege people:) When Kings turn open professed Foes to their Subjects in an Hostile Warlike way, they presently both in Law and Conscience, cease to be their Kings de jure, as to this particular, and their Subjects allegiance thereby is as to this discharged, and suspended towards them, as appears by the King's Coronation Oath, and the 
* Math. Paris pag. 73. Speed p. 483. 484.  Lords and Prelates conditional Fealty to King Steven, so that they may justly in Law and Conscience resist their unlawful assaults, as enemies; for which they must only censure their own rash unjust proceedings, and breach of Faith to their People, not their People's just defensive opposition which themselves alone occasioned.  
Seventhly, It must of necessity be granted; that for any King to levy war against his Subjects, unless upon very good grounds of Law and conscience, and in case of absolute necessity, when there is no other remedy left, is directly contrary to his very Oath and duty, witness the Law of King Edward the Confessor, cap. 17. and Coronation Oaths of all our Kings forementioned; To keep PEACE and godly agreement ENTIRELY, ACCORDING TO THEIR POWER to their people; Contrary to all the fundamental Laws of the Realm, and the Prologues of most Statutes, entirely to preserve, and earnestly to endeavour the peace and welfare of their people's persons, goods, estates, laws, liberties; Contrary to the main tenor of all 
y 1 Tim. 2. 1 2, 3. jer. 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 jeroboam for their King) intending to reduce them to his obedience by force of arms; God by his Prophet Shemiah expressly prohibited him and his army, to go up, or fight against them; and made them all to return to their own houses without fight; and to Isay 14. 4. 19 to 22. where God threatens, to cast the King of Babylon out of his grave, as an abominable branch, as a carcase trodden under foot, (mark the reason) Because thou hast destroyed thy Land, and slain thy People, to cut off from Babylon his name and remembrance, and Sons and Nephews: 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 took up arms 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, etc. If then a King's offensive war upon his Subjects, without very just grounds and unevitable occasions be thus utterly sinful, and unlawful in law and Conscience; and most diametrally contrary to the Oath, Office, trust and duty of a King, (who by this strange metamorphosis 
a Arist. Polit. l. 3. & 5 Buchan. de jure Regni apad Scotos.  becomes a Wolf instead of a Shepherd, a destroyer in lieu of a Protector; a public Enemy in place of a Common friend; an unnatural Tyrant, instead of a natural King) it follows inevitably; that the Subjects or Kingdom's resistance and defensive war in such a case, both by the law of God, of nature, of the Realm, must be lawful, and just; because directly opposite to, the only preservative against that war, which is unlawful and unjust: and so no Treason, nor Rebellion (by any Law of God or man,) which are illegal and criminal too.  
Eightly, It is the received resolution of all 
b Gratia●. Causa, 23. qu 1, 2, 3. jacob Spulegiu●, Lexicon jur is, tit Bellum. F. de justitia et jure Non sine. joannis 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.  Canonists, Schoolmen, and Civil Lawyers; That a defensive war undertaken only for necessary defence, doth not prop●ly deserve the name of war, but only of Defence: That it is no levying of war at all, (which implies an active offensive, 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 only proper judge of Treasons, hath already resolved in point of Law but a faculty only of defence Cuilibet Omni jure, 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 injury is permitted by the very Law of Nations. Hence of all the seven sorts of war which they make, they define the last to be, A just and Necessary War quoth fit se et sua defendendo; and that those who d●e is such a war (caeteris paribus) are safe (Causa 23. qu. 1.) and if they be slain for defence of the Commonwealth, their memory shall live in perpetual glory. And hence they give this Definition of a just War. 
c Calv. Lexicon. Jurid. Ib. ex Hotomano. and other forcited.  War is a Lawful Defence against an imminent or preceding offence upon a public or private cause, concluding: That if Defence be severed from War, it is a Sedition, not War; Although the Emperor himself denounce it; Yea, although the whole World combined together. Proclaim it: For the Emperor, a King, can no more lawfully hurt another in War, than he can take away his goods or life without cause. Therefore let Commentato●s b●awle eternally about War, yet they shall never justify nor prove it lawful, Nisi ex Defensione Legitima; but when it proceeds from Lawful defence, all Wars being rash and unjust, against those who justly defend themselves. This War then being undertaken by the Parliament, only for their own, and the Kingdom's necessary defence, against the King's invasive Armies and Cavaliers (especially, now after the King's rejection of all Honourable and safe terms of Peace and accommodation tendered to him by the Parliament:) must needs be just and lawful; and so no Treason, nor Rebellion, in point of Law or Conscience; Since no Law of God, nor of the Realm, hath given the King any Authority or Commission at all to make this unnatural War upon his Parliament, his people, to enslave their Souls and Bodies, or any inhibition to them, not to defend themselves in such a case.  
These general Considerations thus premised, wherein Law and Conscience walk hand in hand; I shall in the next place lay down such particular grounds for the justification of this War, which are merely Legal; extracted out of the bowels of our known Laws; which no professors of them can contradict.  
First, it is unquestionable, that by the Common and Statute Law of the Land, the King himself, who cannot lawfully proclaim War against a Foreign Enemy, much less against his people, without his Parliaments previous assent, as I have elsewhere proved; cannot by his absolute Sovereign Prerogative, either by verbal Commands, or Commissions under the great Seal of England, derive any lawful or just Authority to any General, Captain, Cavaliers, or person whatsoever, without Legal Trial and Conviction, to seize the Goods or Chattels of any his Subjects, much less, forcecibly to Rob, Spoil, Plunder, Wound, Beat, Kill, Imprison, or make open War upon them, without a most just and in vitable occasion, and that after open kostilitij denounced against them. And if any by virtue of such illegal Commissions or Mandates, Assault, Plunder, Spoil, Rob, Beat, Wound, Slay, Imprison, the Goods, Chattels, Houses, Persons of any Subject not lawfully convicted; They may, and aught to be proceeded against, resisted, apprehended, indicted condemned for it, notwithstanding such Commissions as Trespassers, Thiefs, Burglarers, Felons, Murderers, both by Statute, and Common Law; As is clearly enacted and resolved, by Magna Charta, cap. 29. 15. E. 3. Stat. 1. cap. 1. 2. 3. 42. E. 3. cap. 1. 3. 28. E. 1. Artic. super Chartas, cap. 2. 4 E. 3. c. 4. 5. E. 3. cap. 2. 24. E. 3. cap. 1. 2 R. 2 cap. 7. 5 R. 2 ca 5. 1. H. 5. cap. 6. 11. R. 2. cap. 1. to 6. 24 H. 8. cap. 5. 21. Jacob. c. 3. Against Monopolies. The Petition of Right. 3. Caroli 2. E. 3. c. 8. 14. E. 3. ca 14. 18. E. 3. Stat. 3. 20. E. 3. cap. 1. 2. 3. 1. R 2. cap. 2. And generally all Satutes against Purveyors 42. Ass. Pl. 5. 12. Brooke Commissions, 15. 16. Fortesove, 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 Committees of both Houses, 3 o. Aprilis, 4 o. Caroli, concerning the Right and Privilege of the Subject: newly Printed. Cook lib. 5. fol. 50. 51. lib. 7. fol. 36. 37. lib. 8. fol. 125. to 129. judge Crooks and Huttons Arguments, against Shipmoney, with divers other Law-Bookes. Therefore the Cavaliers can no ways justify, nor excuse their Wounding, Murdering, Imprisoning, Assaulting, Robbing, Pillaging, and spoiling of his Majesty's people and Subjects, and making War upon them, by virtue of any Warrant or Commission from the King; but may justly and legally be apprehended, resisted, and proceeded against, as Murderers, Rebels, Robbers, Felons, notwithstanding any pretended Royal Authority to countenance their execrable unnatural proceedings.  
Secondly, It is irrefragable, that the Subjects in defence of their own Persons, Houses, Goods, Wives, Families, against such as violently assault them by open force of Arms, to wound, slay, beat, imprison, rob, or plunder them, (though by the Kings own illegal Commission) may not only lawfully arm themselves, and fortify their houses (their Castles in judgement of Law,) against them; but refist, apprehend, disarm, beat, wound, repulse, kill them in their just necessary defence; not only without guilt of Treason, or Rebellion, but of Tresspas, or the very lest offence; And Servants in such Cases may lawfully justify, not only the beating, but killing of such persons, who assault their Master's persons, goods, or houses; as is expressly resolved by the Statute of 21. E. 1. De malefactoribus in Parcis; By 24. H. 8. cap. 5. Fitzherbert, Corone, 192. 194. 246. 258. 261. 330. 21. H. 7 39 Trespass, 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. Brook, Coron 63. & Trispas 217. Therefore they may justly defend themselves, resist, oppose, apprehend, and kill his Majesty's Cavaliers, notwithstanding any Commissions, and make a defensive War against them; when as they assault their persons, houses, goods, or habitations, without any Treason, Rebellion, or Crime all against the King or Law.  
Thirdly, It is past dispute, That the Sheriff's justices of Peace, Mayor, Constables and all other Officers of the Realm, may and aught by our Laws and Statutes to raise the power of the Counties and places where they live, and command all persons to arm themselves to assist them upon their Command, when they see just cause (which commands they are all bound to obey under pain of imprisonment and fines, for their contemptuous disobediene herein:) to suppress and withstand all, public breaches of the Peace, Riots, Routs, Robberies, Frays, Tumults, Forcible Entries, and to apprehend, disarm, imprison, and bring to condign punishment all Peace-breakers, Riotors, Trespassers, Robbers, Plunderers, Quarrellers, Murderers, and Forces met together, to do any unlawfull-Hostile act, (though by the Kings own 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 suppress or apprehend them: yea, the Sheriffs, and all other Officers may lawfully raise and arm the power of the County to apprehend Delinquents, by lawful Warrants from the Parliament, or Process out of other inferior Courts of justice, when they contemptuously stand out against their justice, and will not render themselves to a Legal trial; 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. Cook lib. 5. fol. 92. 9 3. with sundry other Books, and Acts of Parliament, and Walsingham, Hist. Angliae, pag. 283. 284. Yea, the Statute of 13. Ed. 1. cap. 38. recites; That such resistance of Process out of any the King's Courts (much more than out of the Highest Court of Parliament) redounds much to the dishonour of the King and his Crown; and that such resisters shall be imprisoned and fined, because they are desturbers of the King's Peace, and of his Realm. And the expired Statute of 31. H. 6. cap. 2. Enacted: That if any Duke, marquis, Earl, Viscount, or Baron, complained of for any great Riots, Extortions, Oppressions, or any offence by them done against the Peace and Laws, to any of the King's Liege-people, should refuse to obey the Process of he King's Court, under his Great or-privie Seal, to him directed, to answer his said offenes; either by refusing to receive the said Process, or dispiting it, on withdrawing himself f●r that cause, and not appearing after Proclamation made by the Sheriff in the County, at the day prescribed by the Proclamation; that then he should for this his contempt, forfeit and lose all his Offices, Fees, Annuities, and other Possessions that he, or any man to his use, hath of the gift or grant of the King, or any of his Progenitors, made to him or any of his Ancestors: And in case he appears not upon the second Proclamation on the day-therein to him limited; that then he shall lose and forfeit his Estate and place in Parliament, and also All the Lands and Tenements wh●ch he hath, or any other to his use for term of his life, and all other persons having no Lands not appearing after Proclamation, were to be put out of the King's Protection, by this Act. Such a hemous offence was it then reputed, to disobey the Process of Chancery, and other inferior Courts of justice even in the greatest Peers; how much greater crime than is, and must it be, contemptuously to disobey the Summons, Process, and Officers of the Parliament itself, the supremest Court of Judicature, especially in those who are Members of it, and stand engaged by their Prostestations, trusts, and Places in it, to maintain its honour, power, and privileges to the uttermost? which many of them now exceedingly vilify, and trample under feet: and therefore deserve a severer censure than this statute inflicts; even such as the Act of 21. R. 2. c. 6. prescribed to those Nobles unjustly forejudged in that Parliament; That their issues males now begotten shall not come to the Parliaments, nor to the Counsels of the King nor his heirs; nor be of the King's Counsel nor of his heirs; Therefore it is undubitable, that the Sheriffs, justices of Peace, Majors, Constables, Leiutenantes, Captains, and other Officers in every County through the Realm, may by their own Authority (much more by an Ordinance and Act of association of both houses) raise all the power of the County, & all the people by virtue of such commands may lawfully meet together in Arms to suppress the riots, burglaries, rapines, plunders, butcheries, spoiling, robberies, and armed violence of his Majesty's Cavaliers; and apprehend, imprison, slay, arraign, execute them as common enemies to the kingdom's peace and welfare, even by the known Common Law, and Statutes of the Realm, and seife Delinquents notwithstanding any royal Commission or personal commands they may or can produce.  
Fourthly, it is most certain, that every Subject by the very Common Law of the Realm, (yea Law of Nature) as he is a member of the State and Church of England, 
d See principally 48. H. 3. Rot. Pat. Man 7. & Mem. 11 Dorss.  is bound both in duty and conscience, when there is necessary occasion, to Array and Arm himself to resist the invasions, and assaults of open enemies of the Realm, especially of Foreigners, as is clear by infinite * Precedents, cited by the Kings own Council, and recited by Judge Crook 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 King's name; all newly Printed (to which I shall refer the Reader for fuller Satisfaction:) 
e See Aristot. Pol. l. 1, c, 1, 2, & l. 2, 3. Polib. hist. l. 6. Fortescue. c. 9 to 15.  and by the express statutes of 1 E. 3. c. 5. 25. E. 3. c. 8. and 4. H. 4. c. 13. The reason is from the Original compact and mutual stipulation of every member of any Republic, State or Society of men for mutual defence one of another upon all occasions of invasion, made at their first association and incorporation into a Republic, state, kingdom, Nation, of which we have a pregnant example, judg. 20. 1. to 48. If then the King himself shall introduce foreign Forces and enemies into his Realm to levy war against it, or shall himself become an open enemy to it; the Subjects are obleiged, by the selfsame reason, law, equity, especially upon the Parliaments command, to Arm themselves to defend their Native Country, Kingdom against these foreign and domestic Forces, and the King himself if he join with them; as far forth as they are bound to do it upon the Kings own Writ and Commission, in case he joined with the Parliament and Kingdom against them; the necessary defence and preservation of the Kingdom and themselves (and of the King only so far forth as he shows himself a King and Patron, not an enemy of his Kingdom, and Subjects,) being the sole ground of their engagement in such defensive wars: according to this notable resolution of Cicero, 
s De Offici●●. l. 2. p. 626.  Omnium Societatum nulla est gratior, nulla carior quam ea quae cum Republica est unicuique nostrum Cari sunt pare●tes, cariliberi, propinqui, familiares, SED OMNES OMNIVM CARITATES PATRIA una COMPLEXA EST, pro qua quis bonus dubit t●mortem oppetere, si ei sit prosuturus? Q●o est detestabilior illorum immanitas. qui lacerant omni scelere Patriam, & n●a sunditus delenda occupati & sunt & fuerunt: and seeing kings themselves as well as Subjects are bound to 
g Exod. 32. 9 to 15. 32. Num. 14. 11. to 15. 2 Sam 8. 9 17. 1. Chr. 21. 17. john 10. 11. 15. c. 11. 48. 49. 50.  hazard their lives for the preservation of their Kingdoms, and people's safeti; and not to endanger the ruin of the Kingdom and people to preserve their own lives and prerogatives, as I have elsewhere manifested; it cannot be denied, but that every Subject, when the King is unjustly divided against his Kingdom, Parliament, and People, is mere obliged to join with the kingdom, Parliament, and his Native dearest Country, (who are most considerable) against the King; than with the king against their; and rather in such a case than any other, because there is less need of help, and no such danger of ruin to the whole Realm and Nation, when the King joins with them against foreign invading enemies; as there is when the king himself becomes an open intestine Foe unto them, against his Oath and Daty: and the 
h Cicero de Ligibus.  People's safety being the Supremest Law, & the Houses of Parliament the most Sovereign Authority, they ought in such unhappy cases of extremity and division to oversway all Subjects, to contribute their best assistance for their necessary just defence, even against the king himself and all his Partisans, who take up Hostile Arms against them, and not to assist them to ruin their own Country, Kingdom, Nation, as many as now over-rashly do.  
Fifthly, I conceive it clear Law, that if the King himself, or his Courtiers with him, shall wrongfully assault any of his Subjects to wound, rob, or murder them without just cause, that the subjects, without any guilt of Treason or Rebellion, may not only in their own defence resist the King and his Courtiers assaults in such a case, and hold their hands (as 
i Resolution of Conscience. Sect. 2.  Doctor Ferne himself accords) but likewise close with, and disarm them; and if the King or his Courtiers receive any blows, wounds, in such a case; or be casually slain, it is neither Treason nor Murder, in the Defendants, who had no Treasonable nor murderous intention at all in them, but only endeavoured their own just defence, attempting nothing at all against the king's lawful Royal authority: as is clear by all Law 
k See Stamfords' Pleas: f. 14. 15. 16.  Cases, of man slaughter, see defendends, and to put this out of question, I shall cite but two or three cases of like Nature. It hath been very 
l see Andrew Favine his Theatre of Honour l. 10. c. 5. 6. 7. Hall's 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 trial of their man hood, to run at jousts and fight at Barriers, not only with foreigners, but with their own valiantest L●rds and Knights, of which there are various Examples. In these Martial disports, by the very Law of Arm●s, these Subjects have not only defended themselves against their king's assaults and blows; but retorted lance for lance, stroke for stroke, and sometimes unborsed, disarmed, and wounded their Kings, our 
m Hall An. 16. H. 8. f. 122. 123.  King Henry the eight, being like to be slain by the Earl of Suffolk, at a Tilting in the 16. year of his reign: and no longer since then the year 1559. Henry the 2d, King of France, was casually slain in a lov'st by the Earl of Mountgommery, his Subject, (whom he commanded to Just one bout more with him against his will) whose Spear in the counter-blow ran so right into one of the King's eyes, that the shivers of it pierced into his head, perished his brain and slew him: yet this was judged no Treason, Felony, nor offence at all in the Earl, who had no ill intention. If then it hath ever been reputed lawful and honourable, for Subjects in such military exercises, upon the challenges of their kings, to defend themselves courageously against their assaults, and thus to fight with and encounter them in a martial manner, though there were no necessity for them to answer such a challenge; and the casual wounding or slaying of the King by a Subject in such a case be neither Treason nor Felony: then much more must it be lawful by the Law of Arms, Nature, and the kingdom, for the Parliament and subjects in a necessary, just, unavoidable war, to defend, resist, repulse the kings and his Cavaleers-personall assaults, and return 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 
o Hall's Chron. f. 123. 16. H. 8.  Henry the 8th when endangered by tilting) blame themselves alo●e, and have no other just legal remedy but patience, it being neither Treason, Rebellion, nor Murder in the defensive party, and most desperate folly and frenzy in any Prince, to engage himself in such a danger, when beneede not do it. I read of 
p General History of France p. 227, 228. Fabians Chron part. 7. in his life; with others.  Charles the first of France; that he fell suddenly distracted upon a message he received from an old poor man, as he was marching in the head of his Army; and thereupon thinking himself betrayed encountered his own men, and slew two or three of them ere they were ware of him, wounding others. Whereupon they closing with him, disarmed and led him away forceably, keeping him close shut up like à Bedlam, till he recovered his senses. I think no man in his right wits, will deem this their action Treasonable or unlawful; neither did the king or any in that age thus repute it. If then a King in an angry frantic passion (for 
q Seneca de Ira.  Ir. brevius furor est;) shall take up Arms against his loyal Subjects, and assault their persons to murder them and spoil their goods; if they (by common consent in Parliament especially) shall forcibly resist, disarm or restrain his person, till his fury be appeased, and his judgement rectified by better counsels; shall this be Treason, Rebellion, or Disloyalty? God forbid: I think none but mad men can or will averte it. It was a great doubt in Law, till the statute of 33. H. 8. c. 20. settled it, If a party that had committed any high Treasons when he was of perfect memory; after accusation, examination, and confession thereof became mad or lunatic; whether he should b● tried and condemned for it during this distemper? And some from that very act (and 21. H. 7. 31. 36. Ass 27. 12. H. 3. For faiture 33 and Dower 183. Fitz. Nat. Br. 202. D. Stamford Pleas, 16. b. and Cook. l. 4. f. 124. Beverlyes' case, which resolve, ●hat a Lunatic or Non Compos cannot be guilty of murder, fell n●y, appetite Treason, because having no understanding, and knowing not what he doth, he can ●ave n● follonius intention) conceive, that a real madman cannot be guilty of high Treason (though Sir Edward Cook in Bev●rlies case, be of a contrary opinion) if he should assault or kill his king. And I suppose few will deem 
r 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 casual killing of King William Rufus with the glance of his arrow from a tree, shot at a Deer, high Treason; neither was it then reputed so, or he prosecuted as a Traitor for it, because he had no malicious intention (as most think) against the King, or any thought to hurt him. But I conceive it out of question, if a king in a distracted furious passion without just cause, shall invade his subjects persons in an open hostile manner to destroy them; it neither is, nor can be Treason ner Rebellion in them, if in their own necessary defence alone, they shall either casually wound or slay him contrary to their loyal intentions; and those 
s See Stamford Bracton, Fitzherbert, Brock, Cromp. Tit. Treason & Coro●s.  Statutes and Law-book●s which judge it high Treason, for any one maliciously and traitorously to imagine, compass or conspire the death of the King; will not at all extend to such a case of mere just defence; since a conspiracy or imagination to compass or procure the King's death, can neither be justly imagined nor presumed, in those who are but merely defensive, no more then in other common cases of one man's killing another in his own inevitable defence without any precedent malice; in which a Pardon by Law, is granted of course: however, questionless it is no Treason nor murder at all to slay any of the king's soldiers and Cavaliers who are no kings, in such a defensive war.  
Sixthly, suppose the King should be captivated, or violently led away by any foreign or domestic enemies to him and the kingdom, and carried along with them in the field, to countenance their wars and invasions upon his loyallest Subjects, by illegal warrants or Commissions fraudulently procured, or extorted from him. If the Parliament and Kingdom in such a case, should raise an Army to rescue the King out of their hands, and to that end encountering the enemies, should casually wound the King whiles they out of loyalty sought only to rescue him; I would demand of any Lawyer or Divine, whether this Act should be deemed Treason, Rebellion or Disloyalty in the Parliament or army? Or which of the two Armies should in point of Law or Conscience be reputed Rebels or Traitors in this case? those that come only to rescue the King, and so fight really for him indeed, though against him in show; and wound him in the rescue? Or those who in show only fought for him, that they might still detain him captive to their wills? Doubtless there is no Lawyer, nor Theologue but would presently resolve in such a case, that the Parliaments Army which fought only to rescue the King were the loyal Subjects; and the Malignant's army who held him captive with them, the only Rebels and traitors; and that the casual wounding of him (proceeding not out of any malicious intention, but love and loyalty to redeem him from captivity,) were no trespass nor offence at all, being quite besides their thoughts: and for a direct precedent; It was the very case of King 
t 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 son Prince Edward) being taken Prisoner by the Earl of Leycester in the battle of Lewis, and the Earl afterwards carrying him about in his Company in nature of a Prisoner, to countenance his actions, to the great discontent of the Prince, the Earl of Gloucester and other Nobles; hereupon the Prince and they raising an Army, encountered the Earl, and his Porces in a battle at Evesha● where the King was personally present, slew the Earl, Routed his Army, and rescued the king; in this cruel battle, the 
n In praesenti bello, Dominus Rex extitit vulneatus & morti paene vicinus, jaculo in eum ex improviso de. jecto, Mat. Par. Ibid.  king himself (being wounded unawares with a javelin, by those who rescued him) was almost slain, and lost much of his blood: yet in a Parliament soon after summoned at Winchester, Anno 1266. the Earl and his Army were disinherited as Traitors and Rebels; but those who rescued them though with danger to his person, rewarded as his loyal subjects. And is not this the present case? A company of malignant ill Councillors, Delinquents, Prelates, Papists, have withdrawn his Majesty from his Parliament, raised an Army of Papists, Foreigners, Delinquents and Malcontents, to ruin the Parliament, Kingdom, Religion, Laws, Liberties; to countenance this their design, they detain his Majesty with them, and engage him all they can on their side: the Parliament out of no disloyal intention, but only to rescue his Majesty's person out of their hands, to apprehend delinquents, preserve the Kingdom from spoil, and defend their Privileges, Persons, Liberties, estates, religion, from unjust invasions, have raised a defensive Army, which encountered these Forces at Edgehill, (where they say the King was present) slew the Lord General (Earl of Lindsey) with many others; and as they never intended, so they offered no kind of hurt or violence at all to his Majesty's person then or since; and now full sore against their wills, Petitions, endeavours for peace, they are necessitated to continue this offensive war, for their own and the Kingdom's necessary preservation. The sole question is; Whether this Act, this Defensive War of the Parliament and their Forces be high Treason or Rebellion? and who are the Traitors and Rebels in this case? Certainly, if I understand any Law or Reason, the Parliament and their Forces are and must be innocent from these crimes; and their opposite Popish Malignant Cavaliers, the only Rebels and Traitors; as this Parliament (the only proper Judge of Treasons) hath 
x See the Remens●r●nce of both Houses Nou. 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. Cook l. 9 f. 50. 95. 96. 99  Little ●s and other Law-bookes express resolutions; That if a man grant to another the Office of a Parkership, of a Park for life, the estate which he hath is upon condition in Law (though not expressed) that he shall well and lawfully keep the Park, and do what which to his Office belongeth to do, or otherwise it shall be lawful for the grantor and his heirs to remove him, and grant it to another if he will: and if the Parker negligently suffer the Dear to be killed, or kill the Deer himself without sufficient warrant from his Lord, it is a direct forfeiture of his Office. If then a Keeper or Forester cannot kill or negligently suffer his Deer to be killed (no nor yet destroy the vert on which they should feed, or suffer it to be destroyed) without forfeiture of his Office, even by a condition annexed to his Office by the very Common Law; shall a King, think you, lawfully murder, plunder and destroy his Subjects, his kingdom, without any forfeiture or resistance at all? or will the Common Law of the Land in such a case which provides and annexeth a condition to the Office of a Parker, not much more unite it to the royal Office of a King, (who is but a regal Keeper, or 
* Isa. 78. 70. 71. 72.  shepherd of men, of Christians, of free men, not of slaves) for the Subject's preservation and security? Doth the Common-Law thus provide for the safety, the Liberty, welfare of our beasts, yea our wild beasts, are our Deer so dear unto it, and will it not much more provide for the security of our own persons, Lives, Liberties, estates? shall not these be dearer to it than out Dear? How many 
* See Charta de Fortesta, Rassals Abridgement, Title Forests. 3. Jac. c. 13. Petrus Bieser sis de Instit-Episcopi. Bibl. Patr●m Tom 12. Pars 2. p. 944. Illud ni●ilo. minnis absurdum, etc.  riged Laws have been anciently, and of late years made, against the kill, the destroying of the kings, the Subjects Dear in Forests and Parks, for which some have lost their Liberties, Lives, members? And shall not the Laws for the preservation of the Subject's Lives, Liberties, estates be more inviolably observed, more severely prosecuted? May a Forester, Warrener, or Keeper of a Park lawfully beat and kill another in defence of his Deer and other game, without any penalty or forfeiture at all, enjoying the King's Peace as before this fact, by the express statute of 21. E. 1. Rastall Forests 19 and Stamford's Pleas, l. 1. c. 5. 6. And cannot a poor subject defend his own person, family, house, goods, Liberty, life, against the king's Forces, or Cavaliers without the danger of Treason or Rebellion, if the king himself be present with them, or they come armed with his unjust Commission? Certainly this is a too absurd, irrational, bestial opinion for any to believe. It is our Saviour's own doubled argument, Mat. 6. 26. Luke 12. 24. Behold the fowls of the air, and consider the Ravens, for they neither sow nor reap, neither have store-house, nor borne, yet your heavenly Father feedeth them: ARE NOT YE MUCH BETTER THAN THEY? THAN FOWLS? And Luke 12. 6. 7. Mat. 10. 29. 30. 31. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and not one of them shall fall to the ground without your Father: But the very hairs of your head are all numbered: Fear ye not therefore; YE ARE OF MORE VALVE THAN MANY SPARROWS 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, etc. 
* Gen. 1. 28. 29. 30. c. 92. Psa. 8. 4. to. 9  Men are the Sovereign Lords of all the Creatures, of far more excellency and dignity then all, or any of them; especially Christian men; whence the Apostle Paul gives this strict charge to the Elders of Ephesus (belonging as well to kings as Ministers) Act. 20. 28. Take heed therefore unto all the flock over which the holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood: and God himself hath given this express 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 people's safety (most strangely inverted by flattering Divines, quite contrary to the words and meaning:) Touch not mine anointed, and do my Prophets no harm?. And shall not men then made after Gods own 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 himself hath expressly prohibited Kings themselves to touch or harm; not be allowed liberty to defend their persons, houses, lives, liberties, without offence or Treason, against Kings or any their Cavaliers assaults, by the Law of God, the Common or statute Law of the Realm; when as their very Keepers, Warreners, Foresters may lawfully resist, and slay them to without crime or punishment, if they should offer but to kill, to steal their Deer or Coneys? Are they not much better, much dearer to God, to Kings, than fowls? then Sparrows? then Oxen? then Dear? and their lives, their blood more precious than theirs? surely the Scripture is express: 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 man's blood (be he whom he will in an unlawful way) by man shall his blood he shed; if not in a judicial way, yet by way of just 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, MU BE KILLED WITH THE SWORD; (no doubt he may be killed by way of necessary defence;) then it immediately follows; here is the patience and faith of the Saints: that is, Saints will and must patiently endure many pressures and wrongs from Tyrants and oppressors without resistance, but if they once come to make war with them, as the seven headed beast there did v. 7. then both the faith and patience of the Saints themselves will bind their hands no longer, but give them free liberty in such an extremity (for their own and the Church's 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 captivity shall go in o captitivitie, and he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword: and in such a case, God saith, Psal. 149. 6. 7. 8. 9 Let a two edged sword be in their hands, to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishment upon the people: to bi●de their Kings with chains and their Nobles with fetters of Iron; to execute upon them the judgement written: This honour (this privilege in such cases) HAVE ALL THE SAINTS, Praise ye the Lord. And very good reason is there for it. For as Nature itself hath instructed Lions, Bears, Wolves, Boars, Stags, Backs, and most other beasts, not only to defend themselves against the violence of one another, but even of Men their supreme Lords, when they assault and hunt them to take away their lives, over which God hath given men a lawful power: much more than may men by natures dictate, defend their persons, lives against the unlawful violence of their kings or Armies (over which God hath given them no power at all but in a legal way of justice for capital offences) when they assault or make war upon them to destroy them. Not to trouble you with Histories of Stags and other beasts which have killed men that chased them, in their own defence, of which there are infinite examples in the 
* See Tertul. & Cyprian de Spectaculis Onupbrius, Bulengerus, Lyp●ius, and others, De Theatris, Ludio Circensieus and Joannes Mariana despectaculis.  Roman and Spanish Histories, in those Amphithreatricall sports and spectacles wherein men encountered and fought with Lions, Tigers. Bears, Bulls and other savage Beasts; I shall only recite some few examples even of Kings themselves, who have been slain and devoured by such beasts as they have chased: 
* Graft. part. 4 p. 40. part. 5 f. 42 part. 6. p. 62.  Mada● King of Britain (as Polycronicon, Fabien, Grafton and others record) being in his disport of hunting, was slain of the wild beasts he pursued, when he had reigned 40. years: so was his son King Memphis slain and destroyed in hunting in the same manner. Merindus' King of Britain, was devoured by a Sea monster which he encountered: and 
* Zonara's Annal. Tom. 3. f. 15. Muns●eri Cosmeg. l. 4. c. 50. p. 1104.  Basilius the 35 Emperor of Constantinople hunting a Stag, of an extraordinary greatness, and thinking to cut off his neck with his sword; the Stag ran fiercely at him, gored him with his horns on which he tossed him, bruised his entrails, whereof he died some few days after, and had been slain immediately, on the beasts horns, had not one there present drawn his sword and cut off his girdle, by which he hung on the horns, to whom he gave a very ill requital for this loyal service: other stories of kings sla●ne by beasts in their own defence occur in story, and examples of kings slain 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 Augustine's day, espied a thief named Leof, whom he had formerly banished, sitting in the Hall, whereupon he leapt over the Table, assaulted Leof, and plucked him by the hair of the head to the ground; who in his own defence, wounded the king to death with a knife, hurt many of his servants, and at length was himself hewn all in pieces. But that of our King 
* 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 remarkable, who being shot in the arm with a barbed Arrow by one Peter Basil, (or Bertram Gurdon as others name him) at the siege of Chaluz Castle in Aquitain which rebelled against him; the Castle being taken, and the king ready to die of the wound, commanded the person that shot him to be brought into his presence, of whom he demanded, What hurt ●e had done him that provoked him to this mischief? To whom he boldly replied: Thou hast killed my father and my two Brothers, with thine own hand; and now wouldst have slain me: take what revenge thou wilt; I shall willingly endure what ever torture thou canst inflict upon me, in respect I have slain thee, who hast done such and so great mischief to the world. The king hearing this his magnanimous answer, released him from his bonds, (though he slew the rest) and not only forgave him his death, but commanded an hundred shillings to be given him. If then bruits by the very law of Nature have thus defended themselves against kings, who have violently assaulted them, even to the casual death of the assailants: Why men by the selfsame Law, may not justly defend themselves against the unjust assailing wars of their Princes, and Armies, without Treason or Rebellion, exceeds my shallow understanding to apprehend: and I doubt those very persons who now plead most against it, only to accomplish their own pernicious designs, would make no scruple of such a necessary defensive wars and resistances lawfulness, were the case but really their own; and those Papists and Cavalieers who now take up arms against the Parliament, the supremest lawful power in the Realm, and their own native Country, without check of Conscience, would doubtless make no bones at all forcibly to resist or fight against the King himself, should he but really join with the Parliaments Army, against them and their designs; there being never any Soldier or Politician, but those only who were truly sanctified and religious, that made any conscience of fight against, yea murdering of his natural king, not only in a lawful defensive war, but in a Traitorous and Rebellious manner too, if he might thereby advantage or promote his own particular interests, as is evident by the council and speech of David's soldiers, and King Saul himself. 1 Sam. 24. 4. 5. 6. 7. 18. 19 21. by the words of Abishai, to David, 1 Sam. 28. 8. 9 23. 24. by the Council of A●●itophell, which pleased Absalon, and all the Elders of Israel well, 2 Sam 17. 1. 2. 3. 4 and the infinite number of Emperors, of Kings, which have been traitorously, and rebelliously slain, without any just occasion by their own Soldiers, and that in a mere offensive, not defensive way; above half the Roman, Grecian, and Germane Emperors dying of such assassinations, or poison, very few of them of mere natural deaths, as the Histories of their lives declare.  
Eightly, It is in a manner agreed by 
y See Bishop Bilson, of Christian subject on, etc. part 3. p. 411 to 422. and the Authors there cited.  Historians, Politicians, and Divines, that if a King will desert the defence and Protection of his people in times of war and danger, and neither aid nor protect them against their enemies according to his Oath and Duty, they may in such a case of extremity, for their own necessary defence and preservation, desert him, who deserteth them, and elect another King, who can and will protect them from utter ruin. Upon this very ground the 
z Speed. hist. l. 6 c. 5. 4. l 7. 6. ●. 4. Camb. Brit. p. ●07. 108 &c See Holinsh. Poly. Grass.  Britons of this Nation after many hundred years' subjection to the Roman Emperors, rejected their yoke and government, when they refused and neglected to defend them against the barbarous Picts and others, who invaded them, when they had oft craved their assistance; electing them other Patriots: So the 
a 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 own to protect them, which they justified to be lawful for them to do. And in like manner the Romans and Italians being forsaken of the Emperor Constantine, when they were invaded by 
b See Bishop bilson's true difference, etc. p. 3. 411. to 416. and the Appendix here. p. 8. 9  Aistulfus King of the Lumbards'; Elected Charles the Great for their Emperor, and created a new Empire in the West, distinct from that of Constantinople in the East, which Bishop Bilson himself concludes they might lawfully do, in point of conscience. So 
c Aventinus A●i. l. 3. The general hist. of France in his life. See the Appendix.  Childerick being unfit to govern, and unable to repulse the enemies of the French which invaded his territories; thereupon by the advice of Pope Zachary, and of a whole Synod and Parliament in France, they deposed Childericke, and elected Pippin for their King, who was both able and willing to protect them; Upon this very ground the 
d See Grimstans' Imperial history in their lives, & and the Appendix.  Emperor's Charles the third, and Wenceslius were deposed, as being unable and unfit to defend and govern the Empire, and others elected Emperors in their steeds, Thus 
* The General History of Spain p. 455.  Mahomet the blind, King of Granado, was in the year 1309. deposed by his own Brother, Nobles, and Subjects, who were discontented to be governed by a blind King, who could not lead them to the wars in person. And 
* Gras●. part 7 p 85. Buchanon Remon Scot l. 4. p. 121.  Ethodius the 2d king of Scotland, being dull of wit, given to avarice, and nothing meet to govern the Realm; thereupon the Nobles took upon them the government, appointing Rulers in every Province, & so continued them all his reign, leaving him nothing but the bare title of a King, (not depriving him thereof, out of the respect they gave to the family of Fergusius) but yet taking away all his regal power. And not to multiply cases or examples of this nature: 
e 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 4th Book of the History of France, relates a notable resolution given by the Parliament & Estates of France in this very point. In the year 803. 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 kingdom should belong. The elder of these two brethren was named Meligastus, and the younger Celeadraus, Now albeit the custom of the said kingdom, adjudged the Crown to the eldest, according to the right of Primegeniture, allowed and practised by the Law of Nature, and of later memory, in the person of the last dead King Liubus, father to the two contendants; yet notwithstanding in regard that the Subjects by universal consent of the kingdom, had rejected the elder brother FOR HIS COWARDICE AND EVIL GOVERNMENT (cum secundam ritum ejus gentis commissum sibi Regnum parum digne administraret) and had given the Crown to the younger brother FOR HIS VALOUR & DISCREET CARRIGE; after full hearing of both parties, BY SENTENCE of PARLIAMENT, the Kingdom was adjudged to the younger Brother, (stat●it ut junior frater delatam sibi à Populo suo pot flatem haberet, &c) and thereupon the eldest did him homage, with oath of Allegiance in the said Parliament, and submitted to this sentence. And upon this very ground in 
f See Part. near the end.  some of our ancient British and Saxons Kings Reigns when the right heir to the Crown was an infant, unable to defend his kingdom and people against invading enemies, the Crown hath commonly descended to the Uncle or next heir of full age, who was able to protect them and repulse their enemies, till the right heir accomplished his complete age, as I have elsewhere manifested. If then a Kingdom by general consent; may elect a new King to defend and preserve it, in case of invasion and eminent danger of ruin by foreign enemies, when their present King either cannot, or will not do his duty in protecting them from their enemies, and exposeth them for a prey to their devastations, as these examples and authorities conclude they may, though I will not positively determine so. Then certainly by equal, semblable and greater reason, subjects may lawfully take up necessary defensive Arms against their Kings, when they shall not only desert, but actually invade and wage war against them, destroy and waste them in an open Hostile manner, and handle them as cruelly as the worst of enemies: such a wilful unnatural Hostile invasion, being far worse than any cowardly or bare desertion of them when they are invaded by a foreign enemy. And if Kings in case of sottishness or Lunacy may be lawfully deposed from their kingdoms by common consent of their Realms, when they are altogether unfit or unable to govern, as B●shop Bilson asserts, and I have manifested else where: then much more may they be lawfully resisted by force without guilt of Treason or Rebellion, when they wilfully and maliciously, contrary to their oath and duty, cast off their Royal governments, the protection of their subjects, and wage open war against them, to enslave or ruin them. If a Father shall violently and unjustly assault his son, a husband his wife, a master his servant, a Major or other inferior Officer, a Citizen to murder, maim, or ruin them; They may in such a case by 
g See Summ● Rosella Tit. Bel. 'em.  the Law of Nature, God man, resist, repulse them in their own defence without any crime at all, as daily practise experimentally manifests; yea they may swear the peace against them, and have a Writ 
h Fitz Nat. Brevium f. 80. 81.  de securitate Pacis in such cases. Therefore by the selfsame reason they may resist the King and his Army in like cases; there being no more humane nor divine Law against resistance in the one case, than in the other.  
Finally, it is the resolution of 
i Common weal l 2. c● 5. 220. 221.  John Bodin and others, who deny the lawfulness of Subjects taking up Arms against their Sovereign Prince, or offering violence to his person, though he become a Tyrant: That if a Sovereign Prince or King by lawful election or succession turn a Tyrant, he may lawfully (at his Subject's request) be invaded resisted, condemned or slain by a foreign 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 of justice being shut against them: thus did Moses seeing his brother the Israelite beaten and wronged by the Egyptian, and no means to have redress of his wrongs: So it is a most fair and magnifical thing for a Prince to take up Arms to relieve 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 wonderful power and valour destroyed many most horrible monsters, that is to say, Tyrants; and so delivered people, for which he was numbered among the gods, his posterity for many worlds of years after, holding most great Kingdoms. And other imitators of his virtue as Dio, Timoilion, Aratus, Harmodius, Aristogiton, with other such honourable Princes, bearing Titles of chastisers, and correctors of Tyrants, And for that only cause Tamerlain Emperor of the Tartars, denounced war unto 
* See Knols Turkish Hist. in his life.  Bajazet King of the Turks, who then besieged Constantinople, saying, That he was coming to chastise his Tyranny, 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 died. Neither in this case is it material that such a virtuous Prince being a stranger, proceed against a Tyrant by open force, or fierceness, or else by way of justice. True it is that a valiant and worthy Prince, having the Tyrant in his power, shall gain more honour by bringing him unto his trial, to chastise him as a murderer a manqueller, and a robber; rather than to use the Law of Arms against him. Wherefore let us resolve on this, that it is lawful 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 
* Speed Hist. p. 1193. 1194 The History of the Netherlands, and the Swedish Intelligencer.  Queen Elizabeth aided the Low-Countries against the Tyranny and oppressions of the King of Spain: and the King of Sweden of late years the Princes of Germany against the Tyranny and usurpations of the Emperor, upon their solicitation, If then, it be thus lawful for Subjects to call in foreign Princes to relieve them against the Tyranny and oppressions of their kings (as the Barons in 
* Mat. Par. Mat. West. Hoved. Speed, Holish. Fab. Graft. Daniel in his life.  King john's time prayed in aid from Philip and Lewis of France against his tyranny) and those Princes in such cases, may justly kill, depose, or judicially condemn these oppressing Kings and put them to death. I conceive these whole kingdoms and Parliaments may with far better reason, less danger, and greater safety to themselves, their Kings and Realms take up defensive Arms of their own to repulse their violence. For if they may lawfully help themselves and vindicate their Liberties from their King's encroachments by the assistance and Arms of foreign Princes who have no relation to them, nor particular interest in the differences between their kings and them, which can hardly be effected without subjecting themselves to a foreign power; the death or deposition of the oppressing King: much more may they defend and relieve themselves against him by their own domestic Forces, if they be able, by general consent of the Realm; because they have a particular interest and engagement to defend their own persons, estates, liberties, which foreigners want; and by such domestic Forces may prevent a foreign subjection, preserve the life of the oppressing Prince, and succession of the Crown in the hereditary line; which 
* See Knols Turkish Hist. of the calling in the Turk into Graecia and Cambdin & Speed of the Britons calling in the Saxons which proved their ruin and conquest.  foreign Armies most commonly endanger. And certainly it is all one in point of Reason, State, Law, Conscience, for Subjects to relieve themselves, and make a defensive war against their Sovereign by foreign Prince's Arms, as by their own: and if the first be just and lawful, as all men generally grant without contradiction; and Bracton to l. 2. c. 16. I see no colour but the latter must be just and lawful too, yea then the first rather, because less dangerous, less inconvenient to King and Kingdom.  
From Reasons, I shall next proceed to punctual Authorities. Not to mention our ancient 
h See Matth. Westm. Huntingdon, Galfridus Monumetensis, Florentius Wigorniensis, Polychronicon, Fabian, Caxton, Grafton, Holinshed, Speed, and others, in their several lives.  Britons taking up of arms by joint consent, against their oppressing, tyrannising Kings A●chigallo, Emerian, and Vortigern, whom they both expelled and deposed, for their tyranny and misgovernment; nor our Saxons ray sing defensive Forces against King Sigebert, Osfred, Ethelred, Beornard, Coolwulfe and Edwin, who were forcibly expelled, and deprived by their Subjects for their bloody cruelties and oppressions; which actions the whole Kingdom then, and those Historians who recorded them since, reputed just and honourable, and no Treason nor Rebellion in Law or Conscience, being for the Kingdom's necessary preservation, and the people's just defence; which Histories I have elsewhere more largely related. Nor yet to insist long on the forementioned Baron's war, against king john, and Henry the 3d. for regaining, establishing, preserving Magna Cha●ta, and other Liberties of the Realm, which our Kings had almost utterly deprived them off; I shall only give you some few brief observations touching these wars, to clear them from those black aspersions of Rebellion, Treason, and the like, which some late Historians (especially john Speed) to flatter those Kings to whom they Dedicated their Histories, have cast upon them, contrary to the judgement of our ancienter Choniclers, and Matthew Paris; who generally repute them lawful and honourable.  
First then consider, what opinion the Prelates, Barons, and Kingdom in general, had of these Wars at first, 
l 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 Paul's the 16. year of King john's reign, Steven Langton Archbishop of Canterbury, produced a Charter of King Henry the First, whereby he granted the Ancient Liberties of the Kingdom of England (which had by his Predecessors been oppressed with unjust exactions, according to the Laws of King Edward, with those emendations, which his Father, by the counsel of his Barons, did ratify: which Charter being read before the Barons, they much rejoiced; and swore in the presence of the Archbishop; that for these Liberties they would, if need required, spend their blood: which being openly done in Parliament, they would never have taken such a public solemn Oath, had they deemed a War against the King, for recovery, or defence of these their Liberties unlawful, and no less than Treason and Rebellion in point of Law or Conscience. After this the Barons assembling at Saint Edmond●bury, conferred about the said Charter, and swore upon the high Altar, That if King john refused to confirm and restore unto them those Liberties (the Rights of the Kingdom) they would make War upon him, and withdraw themselves from his Allegiance, until he had ratified them all w●th his Charter under his great Seal. And further agreed, after Christmas to Petition him for the same, and in the mean time to provide themselves of Horse and Furniture to be ready, if the King should start from his Oath made at Winchester, at the time of his absolution, for confirmation of these Liberties, and compel him to satisfy their demand. After Christmas they repair in a Military manner to the King, lying in the new Temple, urging their desires with great vehemency: the King seeing their resolution and inclination to war, made answer, That for the matter they required, he would take consideration till after Easter next, In the mean time, he took upon him the Cross, rather through fear, than devotion, supposing himself to be more safe under that Protection: And to show his desperate malice and wilfulness (who rather than not to have an absolute domination over his people, to do what he listed, would be any thing himself under any other that would but support him in his violences) he sent an Embassage (the most base and impious that ever yet was sent by any free and Christian Prince) unto Miramumalim the Moor, entitled the great King of Africa, Morocco, and Spain; wherein he offered to render unto him his Kingdom, and to hold the same by tribute from him as his Sovereign Lord; to forgo the Christian Faith, as vain, and to receive that of Mahomet, employing Thomas Hardington and Ralph Fitz-Nicholas, Knights, and Robert of London Clerk, Commissioners in this negotiation; whose manner of access to this great King, with the delivery of their Message, and King John's Charter to that effect, are at large recited in Matthew Paris, who heard the whole relation from Robert one of the Commissioners, Miramumalim having heard at large their Message, and the Description of the King and Kingdom, (governed by an anointed and Crowned King, known of old to be free and ingenuous; ad nullius, praeterquam Dei spectans dominationem) with the nature and disposition of the people, so much disdained the baseness and impiety of the Offerer, that fetching a deep sigh from his heart, he answered, I have never read nor heard, of any King possessing so prosperous a Kingdom, subject and obedient to him, who would thus willingly ruin his Principality, as of free to make it tributary, of his own to make it another's, of happy to make it miserable, and to submit himself to another's pleasure, as one conquered without a wound. But I have heard and read of many, who with effusion and loss 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 Confederacy; and looking on the two Knights with a stern countenance, he commanded them to depart instantly out of his presence, and to see his face no more; whereupon they departing with shame; he charged Robert the Clerk, to inform him truly what manner of person King john was: who replied, That he was rather a Tyrant then a King; rather a Subverter then a Governor; a Subverter of his own Subjects, and a Fosterer of Strangers; a Lion to his own Subjects, a Lamb to Aliens and Rebels; who by his slothfulness had lost the Duchy of Normandy, and many other Lands, and moreover thirsted to lose and destroy the Kingdom of England: An unsatiable Extortioner of money; an invader and destroyer of the possessions of his natural people, etc. When Miramumalim heard this, he not only despised, as at first, but detested and accursed him, and said: Why do the miserable English permit such a one to reign and domineer over them? Truly, they are effeminate and flavish: To which Robert answered: the English are the most patient of all men, until they are offended and damnified beyond measure. But now they are angry, like a Lion or Elephant, when he perceives himself hurt or bloody; and though late, they purpose and endeavour to shake the yoke of the Oppressor from their necks which lie under it: Whereupon he reprehended the overmuch patience and fearfulness of the English; and dismissed these Messengers; who returning, and relating his Answer to King john, he was exceeding sorrowful, and in much bitterness of Spirit, that he was thus contemned and disappointed of his purpose. Yet persisting in his preconceived wicked design to ruin his Kingdom and people, and hating all the Nobility and Gentry of England, with a viperous Venom, he sets upon another course; and knowing 
* 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 wickedness: Thereupon he hastily dispatcheth messengers to him with great sums of Money, and a re-assurance of his tributary Subjection, (which shortly after he confirmed by a new Oath and Charter,) to procure him to Excommunicate the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Barons, whom he had formerly favoured; which things he greedily desired, that he might wreck has malice an them by Dis inheriting, Imprisoning, and Spoiling them being Excommunicated: Which things when he had wickedly plotted, he more wickedly executed afterwards. In the mean time, the Barons foreseeing that nothing was to be obtained but by strong hand, assemble an Army at Stamford, wherein were said to be two thousand Knights, besides Esquires, and marched from thence towards Oxford, where the King expected their coming to answer their demands. And being come to Brackley with their Army, the King sends the Earl of Pembroke Mariscall, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, with others, to demand of them, what were those Laws and Liberties they required? to whom they showed a Schedule of them, which the Commissioners delivered to the King: who having heard them read, in great indignation asked; Why the Barons did not likewise demand the Kingdom? and swore he would never grant those Articles, whereby himself should be made a Servant. So harsh a thing is it to a power, that is once gotten out into the wide liberty of his will, to hear again of any reducing within his Circle. Upon this answer, the Barons resolve to seize the King's Castles; constitute Robert Fitz-walter their General, entituling him, Mariscall of the ARMY of GOD, and of HOLY CHURCH: A Title they would never have given their General, or Army, had they deemed this War unlawful in Law or Conscience. After which they took divers of the King's Castles and are admitted into London; where their number daily increasing, they make this Protestation; Never to give over the prosecution of their desire, till they had constrained the King (whom they held perjured) to grant them their Rights. Which questionless, they would not have done, had they not believed this War to be just and lawful. King john seeing himself in a manner generally forsaken of all his people, and Nobles, having scarce 7. Knights faithful to him (another strong argument, that the people and Kingdom generally apprehended, this taking up arms against the King to regain, to preserve their hereditary Rights and Liberties, to be lawful) counterfeits the Seals of the Bishops, and writes in their Names to all Nations, That the English were all Apostates, and whosoever would come to invade them, he, by the Pope's consent, would confer upon them all their Lands and Possossions. But this device working no effect, in regard they gave no credit to it, and found it apparently false; the King seeing himself deserted of all, and that those of the Baron's part were innumerable, (cum tota Angliae Nobilitas in unum collecta, quasi sub numero non cadebat, writes Matthew Paris, another argument of the justice of this cause and war, in their beliefs and consciences; at last condescended to grant and confirm their Liberties, which he did at Running-Meade, in such sort as I have formerly related. And though the Pope afterwards for his own private ends and interest, (bribed by King john, who resigned his Kingdom to him, and became his Vassal, without his people's consent, which resignation was judged void,) excommunicated the Barons withal their assistance; Qui Ioha●nem illustrum Regim Anglorum Cruce signatum, ET VASALLUM ROMANAE ECCLESIAE (an honourable Title indeed for a King) per quuntur, molientes ei Regnum auferre (which this Pope himself did but few years before, giving his Crown and Kingdom itself to King Philip 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 King's due Rights, 
1 Pag. 235. 267. 268.  but self-respects to support the Pope's usurped interest and Title to the Realm; and being a wicked plot of the King, more wickedly executed by the Pope, (who as Matthew Paris writes, was AD OMNIA SCELERA pro praemijs datis vel promissis cercus & proclivis) and the Londoners, Barons, with divers Prelates then contemning it, as pronounced upon false suggestions, and especially for this cause, that the ordering of temporal affairs 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 days against the Pope and his usurped Supremacy, with liberty. Vt quid ad nos se extendit Romanorum insatiata cupiditas? Quid Episcopis Apostolicis & Militiae nostrae? Ecce successores Constantini & non Petri, non imitantur Petrum in meritis, vel operibus; nec assimulandi sunt in Potestate. Prob pudor, marcidi ribaldi, qui de armis vel literalitate minime norunt, jam toti mundo propter excom nunicationes suas volunt dominari; ignobiles usurarij & Simoniales. O quantum dissimules Petro, qui sibi Petri usurpant partem? etc. I conceive this Excommunication rather justifies than disproves the lawfulness of this their taking up of arms, and the war ensuing it being but for their own just defence, when the King afterwards with fire, sword, and bloody barbarous Foreign Forces wasted his Realm in a most inhuman, tyrannical manner, Factus de Rege Tyrannus; imo in bestialem prorumpens feritatem, etc. which necessitated the Barons for their own preservation and the Kingdoms (devoted by this unnatural Prince to Vassalage and utter desolation) to elect Lewis of France for their King: Who, together with the Peers and Estates of France, assembled at Lions concerning this Election; resolved it to be just and lawful, and the Barons Defensive Wars against, and rejection of King john for his Tyranny and oppressions, to be just and honourable, since they did but flee to these extraordinary remedies, and seek for justice abroad, when they were denied it by him that should give it them in as ordinary way at home, choosing a King, in place of a Tyrant, as 
m Hist. Angl. pag. 270. 271  Matthew Paris, with the 
n Pag. 123. 122.  general History of France (written by john de Serres, and Englished by Edward Grimston) more largely manifest.  
Secondly, the Lawfulness and justness of the Baron's Wars in Defence of Magna Charta, with other their Hereditary Rights and Liberties, appears most evidently, by the resolution of all those Parliaments summoned by King. Henry the 3 d. Edward the 10 0 2. 3. Richard the 2 d. and other our succeeding Kings; which have many times, even by 
0 See part 1. p. 19 20.  force of Arms, or Menaces; and sometimes by fair terms, caused these Kings by new Acts of Parliament to ratify Magnae Charta, the Charter of the Forest, with other Fundamental Liberties, thus forcibly extorted from King john at first; and constrained them to confirm him with their Oaths and solemn public 
p Confirm. Chartarum. 25. E. 1. c. 4.  Excommunications, to be published by the Bishops in their Diocese twice every year: oft solemnly vowing, and protesting, both in and out of Parliament, to defend these Laws and Liberties, with their estates, arms, lives, blood; which their ancasters had purchased with their blood; as I have manifested in the two first parts of this Discourse: All which they would no doubt have forborn, had they deemed it high Treason or Rebellion in point of Law, to take up arms against their Kings in defence or these Laws and Privileges; neither would our Kings and Parliaments in times of Peace, have so frequently confirmed these Laws and Immunities, as just and necessary for the people's welfare, had they reputed their former purchases and confirmations by war and arms, no less than 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 arms in defence thereof; much less can it be Treason or Rebellion in the Parliament and Subjects now (by Votes, by Ordinances of both Houses) with force of arms to preserve, not only these their hereditary Charters, Laws, Privileges, but their very Lives, Estates; yea, the Privileges and being of Parliaments themselves, which are now invaded, endangered.  
What opinion the world had of the lawfulness of most of the Baron's Wars in King Henry the 3 d. his Reign, against this troublesome perfidious King, in defence of their Laws, Liberties, Estates, appears first, by the Dialogue between Agnellus, a Friar minorite, one of King Henry his Counsel, (purposely sent to the Earl Martial, then in arms against the King) and this Martial Earl, in the Abbey of Morgan. Anno 1233. I will first relate the true state of that War, and then their Dialogue concerning it: 
q Math. Paris Hist. p. 371. to 385. Daniel, p. 153. 154. See Holinsse, Graft. Speed. Matth. West. Anno 1233.  King Henry by the ill counsel of Peter Bishop of Winchester, removed all his English Officers, Counsellors, and Servants from his Court, and put Poictovines, and Foreigners in their places, being ruled wholly by them; withal he puts the English Garrisons out of all his Castles, and substitutes Foreigners in them, which daily arrived both with Horse and arms in great multitudes, and much oppressed the people, calling them Traitors; so that the power and wealth of the Realm was wholly under their Command. The Earl Martial seeing the Noble and Ignoble thus oppressed, and the rights of the Kingdom like utterly to be lost; provoked with a zeal of justice, associating to himself other Noble men, goes boldly to the King, reproves him in the hearing of many, For calling in those Poictovines, by evil Counsel, to the oppression of the Kingdom, and of his natural Subjects, and likewise of Laws and Liberties; Humbly beseeching him, hastily to correct these excesses, which threatened the imminent subversion both of His Crown and Kingdom, which if he refused to do, he and the other Nobles of the Realm, would withdraw themselves from his Counsel, as long as he harboured those Strangers. To which Peter of Winchester replied: That the King might lawfully call in what strangers be would, for the Defence of his Kingdom and Crown, and likewise so many, and such, as might compel his proud and rebellious Subjects to due Obedience. Whereupon the Earl Martial and other Nobles, departing discontented from the Court, when they could get no other answer, promised firmly one to another; That for this cause which concerned them all, they would manfully fight, even to the separation of Soul and Body. After which, they seeing more Strangers arrive with Horse and arms every day, sent word to the King; That he should forthwith remove Bishop Peter, and all his Strangers from his Court, which if he refused, they all would BY THE COMMON CONSENT OF THE WHOLE REALM drive him, with his wicked Counselors, out of the Realm, and consult of choosing them a new King. After these, and some other like passages, the King raising an Army, besiegeth one of the Earls Castles; and not being able to win it, and ashamed to raise his Siege without gaining it, he sent certain Bishops to the Earl, and requested him; that since he had besieged his Castle, and he could not with Honour depart without winning it, which he could not do by force, that the Earl to save his Honour would cause it to be surrended to him, upon this condition, That he would restore it certainly to him within 15. days, and that by advise of the Bishops he would amend all things amiss in his Kingdom; for performance of which the Bishops became his Pledges, and the King appointed a meeting at Westminster, on a set day between Him and the Lords: whereupon the Earl surrendered the Castle to the King, upon Oath made by the Bishops that it should be restored at the day. But the King refusing to deliver the Earl the Castle, according to promise, and threatening to subdue his other Castles; the Earl hereupon raiseth his Forces, wins his Castle again, routs divers of the King's Foreign Forces, at Gorsemond, Monmouth, and other places; and invaded the lands of his Enemies. Upon this occasion, Friar Agnellus (or Lamb) acquaints the Earl, what the King, together with his Counsel and Court, thought of his proceedings; to wit, that the King said, he had proceeded over traitorously, and unjustly against him, yet he was willing to receive him into favour, if he would wholly submit himself to his mercy; and that others held it not just, safe, and profitable for him to do 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 King's 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 break forth against the King his Lord, until he had certain knowledge, that the King had such intentions against him: ET EX TUNC LICERET TALIA ATTEMPTARE; and from thenceforth he might lawfully attempt such things, (by the Courtiers and Friars own Confessions:) Upon which the Martial said to Friar Lamb: To the first they say, that I ought to submit myself, because I have invaded the King: it is not true, because the King himself, (though I have been ever ready to stand to the Law and judgement of my Peers in his Court, and have oft times requested it by many messengers between us, which he always denied to grant) violently entered my Land, and invaded it against all justice: whom hoping in humility to please, I freely entered into a form of peace with him, which was very prejudicial 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 david's; Seeing then he hath violated all the Articles of the Peace, IT WAS LAWFUL FOR ME, According to my agreement, to recover what was mine own; and to debilitate his power by all means; especially seeing he endeavoured my destruction, dis-inheritance, and seizing of my Body, of which I have certain intelligence, and am able to prove it if need be. And which is more, after the 15 day's truce, before I entered Wales, or made any defence, he deprived me of the Office of Martial, without judgement, which belongs to me, and I have enjoyed by Inheritance, neither would he by any means restore me to it, though required. Whence I have plainly learned, that he will keep no peace with me, seeing since the Peace he handles me worse than before. Whereby I ceased to be his Subject, and was absolved from his homage by him. Wherefore it was, and is lawful for me to defend myself, and to withstand the malice of his Counsellors by all means. And whereas the King's Counsellors say, it is profitable for me to submit to the King's mercy, because he is more rich and powerful than I am. It is true, the King is richer and more potent than I, but yet he is not more powerful than God, who is justice itself, in whom I trust, in the confirmation and prosecution of my right, and of the Kingdoms. And whereas they say, the King can bring in Strangers of his kindred, who are neither Scots, nor French, nor Welsh, who shall make all his foes his Footstool, 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 aid, Unless, which God forbid, inopinata & immutabilis, fuero compulsus necessitate; I shall be compelied by a sudden and immutable necessity; and I believe by his Counsels ill advise he will quickly bring in such multitudes of Strangers, that he will not be able to free the Kingdom of them again; for I have learned from credible men, that the Bishop of Winchester is bound to the Emperor, that he will make the Kingdom of England subject to him; which God in his providence avert. And whereas they say, That I may confide in the King and his Counsel, because the King is merciful, credible, etc. It may well be that the King is merciful; but he is seduced be the Counsel of those, by whom we feel ourselves much hurt; and he is Noble and credible (whom God long preserve so) as much as in him lies; but as for his Counsel, I say, that no one promise made to me, was ever yet kept, and they have violated many corporal Oaths made to me, and the Oaths they took for observing Magna Charta, for which they remain excommunicate and perjured. Yea, they are enjured concerning the faithful Counsel which they have sworn to give to our Lord the King, when as they have wilfully given him the Counsel of Achitophel, against justice; and corrupted the just Laws they have sworn to keep, and introduced unusual 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? 
Rumour de veteri faciet ventura timeri:  
Cras poterunt fieri turtia sicut heri.  
Falix quem faciunt aliena pericula cautum.   
Whereas the said Counsellors of the King say, that I invaded the King's body at Gorsmund Castle, before the King had entered my Land; and so I did injury to the King, for which I ought to implore his mercy, lest others should take example thence to raise up Arms against the King. I answer, that I was not there in person; and if any of my Family were thereby chance, they invaded only 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 oppress me by all the means he could, which may appear to all by the tenor of his Letters, by which he made a general assembly throughout England against my Army. And since the premises objected against me are false, and it is true, that the King hath treated me worse since the time I expected his mercy, than any time before, and doth yet use the same Counsel as then; and since he endeavours precisely to follow their Counsels in all things, by whose advice I suffer all the premised grievances; I ought not to prostitute myself to his mercy. Neither would this be for the King's honour, that I should consent unto his will, which is not grounded upon reason. Yea, I should do an injury to him, and to justice, which he ought to use towards his Subjects, and to maintain. And I should give an ill example to all, by deserting justice, and the prosecution of right, for an erroneous will against all justice, and the injury of the Subjects: For by this it would appear, that we loved our worldly possessions, more than justice itself. And whereas the King's Counselors object, that we have combined with the King's capital enemies, namely, the French, Scots, Welsh, out of hatred and damage to king and kingdom: That of the French is altogether false, and that of the Scots and Welsh too; excepting the king of Scots, and Leoline Prince of North-wales; who were not the king's enemies, but faithful friends, until by injuries offered them by the King and his Counsel, they were by coercion against their wills, alienated from their fidelity, as I am. And for this cause I am confederated with them, that we may the better being united, then separated, regain and defend our rights, of which we are unjustly deprived, and in a great part spoiled. Whereas the King's Counsel 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 appear: that in some sort they would cause the King to sustain loss, by those whom he specially calls, capital enemies, to injure me who have always been his faithful 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, do specially love the King and kingdom, and will Excommunicate all his adversaries, which thing is even at the doors, because they have already sent for a Legate: It pleaseth me well, said the Marshal; because the more they love the King and Kingdom, by so much the more will they desire that the King should treat his Realm and Subjects, according to justice: And I am well pleased they should excommunicate the adversaries of the Kingdom, because they are those who give Counsel against justice, whom works will manifest; because justice and Peace have kissed each other; and because of this, where justice is corrupted, Peace is likewise violated. Also I am pleased that a Legate is coming, because the more discreet men shall hear our justice, by so much the more vilely shall the adversaries of justice be confounded. In which notable discourse we see the lawfulness of a necessary defensive War yielded and justified both by the King, his Counsel, and the Earl Martial, as well against the King himself, if he invade his Subjects first, as any of his Forces who assist him. After which the Marshal slew many of his Enemies by an Ambuscado, while they thought to surprise him, and wasted and spoiled their goods, houses, lands; observing this general laudable rule which they made, to do no hurt, nor ill to any one, but to the King's evil Counsellors by whom they were banished, whose goods, houses, woods, Orchards, they spoilt, burnt, and rooted up. The King remaining at Gloucester, heard of these proceedings of the Marshal, but his forces being too weak, 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 slain lay naked and unburied in the ways, being food to the beasts and birds of prey: a sad spectacle to passengers, which so corrupted the air, that it infected and killed many who were healthy. Yet the King's heart was so hardened, by the wicked council he followed, against the Marshal, that the Bishops admonishing him to make peace with him, WHO FOUGHT FOR JUSTISE: he answered, that he would never make peace with him, unless coming with an halter about his neck and acknowledging himself to be a Traitor, he would implore his mercy. The Marshal both in England and Ireland; professed that he was no Traitor; that his war 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.  

r Page 966. 967. Daniel, p. 178.  William Rishanger in his continuation of Matthew Paris, speaking of the death of Simon Monfort Earl of Leycester, slain in the Battle of Ev●sham, the greatest Pillar of the Barons wars; useth this expression. Thus this magnificent Earl Simon, ended his labours, who not only bestowed his estate but his person also, for releiefe of the oppression of the poor; for the asserting of justice, and the right of the Realm: he was commendably skilful in learning, a daily frequenter of divine Offices, constant in word, severe in countenance, most confiding in the prayers of Religious persons, always very respectful to Ecclesiastical persons. He earnestly adheared to Robert Grosthead Bishop of Lincoln, and committed his children to his education. By his advice he handled difficult things, attempted doubtful things, concluded things begun, specially such things whereby he thought he might gain desert. Which Bishop was said to have enjoined him, as he would obtain remission of his sins, 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 material sword; and constantly averring; THAT ALL WHO DIED FOR IT WERE CROWNED WITH MARTYRDOM. Some say that this Bishop on a time, laying his hand on the head of the Earls eldest son, said unto him. O most dear son, thou and thy father shall both die on one day, and with one hand of death; YET FOR JUSTICE AND TRUTH. Fame reports that Simon after his death grew famous by many miracles, which for fear of the King came not in public. Thus this Historian, thus Robert Grosthead the most devout and learned Bishop of that age, (who most of any opposed the Pope's Usurpations and exactions) determine of the justice and lawfulness of the Baron's Wars; Walter Bishop of Worcester concurring in the same opinion with Grosthead. The same 
s Page. 970.  author Rishanger records; that the Earl of Gloucester, a great stickler in these wars against the king, with whom at last he accorded; signified to the King by his Letters Patents under his seal, that he would never bear Arms against the King his Lord, nor against his Son Prince Edward, NISI DEFENDO; but only in his Defence: which the King and Prince accepting of, clearly proves; that defensive Arms against King or Prince were in that age generally reputed Lawful, by King Prince, Prelates, Nobles, People. I may likewise add to this what I read in 
t An. 3263. p. 336.  Matthew Westminster, that Richard Bishop of Chichester the day before the battle of Lewis against King Henry and his son (who were taken prisoners in it by the Barons and 20000. of their Soldiers slain;) absolved all that went to fight against the King their Lord from all their sins. Such confidence had he of the goodness of the cause and justness of the war.  
In one word, the 
u 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. year of his Reign; Hear all men, that I Richard Earl of Cornwall, do here swear upon the holy Evangelists, that I shall be faithful, and diligent to reform with you the Kingdom of England, hitherto by the council of wicked persons overmuch disordered: and be an effectual Coadjutor TO EXPEL THE REBELS, and disturbers of the same. And this Oath I will inviolaby observe, under pa●ne of losing all the lands I have in England: So help me God. Which Oath all the Barons and their associates took, (by virtue whereof they took up arms against the King's ill Councillors, and himself when he joined with them,) sufficiently demonstrates their public opinions and judgements of the lawfulness, the justness of their wars; and of all other necessary defensive arms, taken up by the Kingdom's general assent for preservation of its Laws, Liberties, and suppression of those Rebels, and ill Councillors who fight against, or labour to subvert them by their policies.  

x 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 year of King Edward the 2d, this king revoking his great Minion 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 Barons hereupon by common consent sent the King word; that he should banish Piers from his company according to his agreement, or else they would certainly rise up against him as a perjured person. Upon which the King much terrified suffers Piers to abjure the Realm; who returning again soon after to the Court at York; where the king entertained him; the Lords spiritual and temporal, to preserve he liberties of the Church and Realm, sent an honourable message to the King, to deliver Piers into their hands, or banish him, for the preservation of the peace, Treasure and weal of the Kingdom; this wilful King denies their just request; whereupon the Lords thus contemned and deluded, raised an army, and march with all speed towards Newcastle, NOT TO OFFER INIURIE OR MOLESTATION TO THE KING, but to apprehend Peirs, and judge him according to Law: upon this the King fleeth together with Peirs to Tinemouth, and from thence to Scarborough Castle, where Piers is forced to render himself to the Barons, who at Warwick Castle, (without any legal trial by mere martial Law) beheaded him, as a subvertor of the Laws, and an OPEN TRAITOR TO THE KINGDOM. For which facts this King afterwards reprehending and accusing the Lords in Parliament, in the 7th year of his Reign; they stoutly answered, THAT THEY HAD NOT OFFENDED IN ANY ONE POINT, BUT DESERVED HIS ROYAL FAVOUR, for they HAD NOT GATHERED FORCE AGAINST HIM (though he were in Piers his company, assisted, countenanced, and fled with him) BUT AGAINST THE PUBLIC ENEMY OF THE REALM: Whereupon there were two acts of oblivion passed by the King, Lords and Commons assembled in that Parliament, (Printed in the 
y F. 43. 44.  2d Part of old Magna Charta:) The first, that no person (on the King's part) should be questioned, molested, impeached, imprisoned, and brought to judgement, for causing Pierce to return from Exile, or harboring, councelling or aiding hi●●ere after his return: The second on the Baron's part, in these words: It is provided by the King, and by the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Bar●s and Commons, of the Realm, assembled according to our Command, and unanimously assented and accorded, that none of what estate or condition soever he be, shall in time to come be appealed or challenged, for the apprehending, detaining, 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 suit, nor at the suit of any other, either in the King's Court or elsewhere. Which act the King by his Writ, sent to the Judges of the King's Bench, commanding that this grant and concord shall be firm and stable in all its points, and that every of them should be held, and kept in perpetuity; to which end he commands them to cause this act to be there enrolled, and firmly kept for ever. A pregnant evidence that the Barons taking up Arms then against this Traitor and enemy of the Realm, in pursuance of the Act and sentence of Parliament for his banishment, though the King were in his company, and assisted him all he might, was then both by King and Parliament, adjudged no Treason, nor Rebellion at all in point of Law, but a just & honourable action: Wherefore their taking up Arms is not mentioned in this Act of oblivion, seeing they all held it just, but their putting Peers to death, without legal trial; which in strictness of Law, could not be justified. Now whether this be not the Parliaments and kingdoms present case in point of Law (who took up arms principally at first, for defence of their own Privileges of Parliament, and apprehension 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, lawful act, for the kings, the kingdom's honour and safety.  
Not long after this, the two 
z Walsirg. Holinsh. Fab. Graf. Stow, Speed, Daniel in his life.  Spensers getting into the king's favour, and seducing, miscouncelling him as much as Gaveston did; the Lords and Barons hereupon in the 14th and 15th years of his reign, confederated together, to live and die for justice, and to their power to destroy the TRAITORS OF THE REALM, Especially the two Spensers: after which they raised an Army, whereof they made Thomas Earl of Lancaster General; and meeting at Sherborne, they plunder and destroy the Spensers' Castles, Manors. Houses, Friends, Servants, and marching to Saint Albans with Ensigns displayed, sent Messengers to the King then at London, admonishing him not only to rid his Court but Kingdom, of the TRAITORS TO THE REALM, the Spensers (condemned by the Commons in many Articles) to preserve the peace of the Realm; and to grant them and all their followers Letter's Patents of indemnity, for what they had formerly done. Which the King at first denied but afterwards this Army marching up to London, where they were received by the City, he yielded to it, and in the 15th year of his Reign by a special Act of Parliament the said Spensers were disinherited and banished the Realm (formis-councelling the king, oppressing the people by injustice, a vising him to levy war upon his Subjects, making evil judges and other Officers to the hurt of the King and Kingdom, ●ng●ossing the King's ear, and usurping his Royal authority) as ENEMIES of the King and OF HIS PEOPLE: and by another Act of Parliament, it was then provided, that no man should be questioned for any felonies or trespasses committed in the prosecution of Hugh ●e de pensers the father and son; which Act runs thus? Whereas of late many great men of the Realm surmised to Sir Hugh le Despenser the son and Father, many misdemeanours by them committed against the estate of our Lord the King and of his Crown, and to the disinheritance of the great men and destruction of the people, and pursued those misdemeanours and attainder of them by force, because they could not be attainted by process of Law, because that the said Sir Hughes had accroached to them the royal power in divers manner: the said Grandees having mutually bound themselves by oath in writing, without the advice of our Lord the King; and after in pursuing the said Hugh and Hugh, and their allies and adherents, the said great men and others, riding with banners displayed, having in them the Arms of the king and their own; did take and occupy the Chattels, Villages, Manors; Lands, Tenements, Goods, and likewise take and imprison some of the King's liege people and others, took some and slew others, and did many other things, in destroying the said Hugh and Hugh, and their allies, 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, summoned at Westminster three weeks after the Nativity of Saint John Baptist the 15. year of his Reign, for the said misdemeanours were fore judged and banished the Realm, by a vote of the Peers of the Land; and the foresaid great men in the said Parliament, showed to our Lord the King, that the things done in the pursuit 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 war 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 avoiding of war, and assuaging of angers and rancours, and to make unity in the land; and that our Lord the King may more entirely have the hearts and Wills of the great men and of his people, to maintain and defend his Lands, and to make war upon and grieve his enemies. It is accorded and agreed in the said Parliament by our Lord the King, and by the Prelates, Earls, Barons, and Commons of the Realm 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, Manors, Lands, Tenements, and good taken, imprisoning or ransoming the King's liege People, or of other homicides, robberies, felonies, or other things which may be noted as trespasses or felonies committed against the peace of the king by the said great men, their allies, or adherents in the pursuit aforesaid, since the first day of March last passed, till the thursday next after the feast of the assumption of our Lady, to wit, the 19 day of August next ensuing, be appealed, nor challenged, taken nor imprisoned, nor grieved, nor drawn into judgement by the King, nor any other at the suit of any other which shall be in the King's Court or in any place else; but that all such trespasses and Felonies shall be discharged by this accord and assent: saving always to all men, but to the said Hugh and Hugh, action and reason to have and recover their Chattels, Farms, manors, Lands, tenements, wards and marriages according to the Laws and customs used in the Realm, 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 Arms to apprehend the Spens●rs as enemies to the King and kingdom, and marching with banners displayed, 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 been high Treason, this Act and Charters on it extending only to Felony and Trespasses not to Treasons and Rebellions, would 
b Dy●●●. 50. pl. 4 〈◊〉. 6 ●. 12. Stamford. f. 2.  not have pardoned these transcendent Capital crimes. Secondly, that the unlawful outrages, robberies, and murders committed by the soldiers on the king's liege people, and not on the two Spensers the sole delinquents, were the occasion of this Act of oblivion and pardon, not the Armed pursuing of them, when they had gotten above the reach of Law. Thirdly, that though this were an offensive not defensive war, made without common assent of Parliament, and many murders, robberies, and misdemeanours committed in the prosecution of it upon the king's liege people who were no Delinquents; yet being for the common good to suppress and banish these ill Councillors, enemies, Traitors to King and Kingdom, the King and Parliament thought it such a public service as merited a pardon of these misdemeanours in the carriage of it, and acquitted all who were parties to it, from all suits and punishments. All which considered, is a clear demonstration, that they would have resolved our present defensive war, by Authority of both Houses, accompanied with no such outrages as these; for the apprehension of such as have been voted Traitors and Delinquents by Parliament, and stand out in contempt against its justice, for the defence of the Privileges and Members of Parliament, the Liberties and properties of the subject, the fundamental laws of the Realm, the Protestant Religion now endangered by Papists up in Arms in England and Ireland to extirpate it, and the removing ill Counsellors from his Majesty; to be no high Treason, Rebellion or offence at all against the king, but a just and lawful Act, the very miscarriages whereof in the general (except in such disorderly Soldiers for whom martial Law hath provided due punishments) deserve a public pardon both from King and Kingdom. And to put this out of Question; as no fancy of mine own, we have an express Act of Parliament, resolving the taking up of Arms by the Queen, Prince, (both but subjects and capable of High Treason in such a case as well as others) the Nobles and people of the Realm against these two Spensers and other ill Counsellors about this king in the last year of his reign, (though the King himself were in their Company, and taken prisoner by the Forces raised against them,) for the necessary preservation, relief, and safety of the Queen, Prince, Nobles, Kingdom, to be no high Treason nor 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 Son, late at the suit of Thomas then Earl of Lancaster and Leycester, and Steward of England, by the common assent and vote of the Peers and Commons of the Realm, and by the assent of King Edward Father to our Sovereign Lord the King, that now is, AS TRAITORS & ENEMIES OF THE KING, & OF THE REALM, were Exiled, disinherited and banished out of the Realm for ever. And afterward the same Hugh by evil Council, which the king had about him, without the assent of the Peers and Commons of the Realm, came again into the Realm: and they with other procured the said king to pursue the said Earl of Lancaster, and other great men and people of the Realm, in which pursuit the said Earl of Lancaster and other great men and people of the Realm, were willingly dead and disinherited, and some outlawed, banished, and disinherited; and some disinherited and imprisoned, and some ransommed and disherited: and after such mischief the said Hugh and Hugh Master Robert Bald●cke and Edm●nd Earl of Arundel usurped to them the Royal power, so that the king nothing did, nor would do, but as the said Hugh and Hugh, Rob●rt and Edmond Earl of Arundel did council 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 Earl of Lancaster, and other great men, our Sovereign Lord the King that now is, and Dame Isabel Queen of England, his Mother, by the Kings will and Common Council of the Realm, went over to France, to treat of peace between the two Realms of England and France, upon certain debates then moved. The said Hugh and Hugh, Robert and Edmond Earl of Arundel continuing in their mischief, encouraged the king against our Sovereign Lord the king that now is, his son, and the said Queen his wife, and by royal 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 Sovereign Lord the King that now is, and the Queen his mother, being in so great jeopardy of themselves in a strange Country, and seeing the Destruction, Damage, Oppressions, and Distractions which were notoriously done in the Realm of England, upon holy Church, Prelates, Earls Barons, and other great men, and the Commonalty by the said Hugh and Hugh, Robert and Edmond Earl of Arundel by the encroaching of the said royal power to them, to take as good Council therein as they might. And seeing they might not remedy the same unless they came into England, with an Army of men of war; and by the Grace of God with such puissance, and with the help of great men and Commons of the Realm, they have vanquished and destroyed the said Hugh and Hugh, Robert and Edmond: Wherefore our Sovereign 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 year of his reign, upon certain Petitions and requests made unto him in the said Parliament upon such Articles above rehearsed, by the common council of the Prelates, Earls, Barons, and other great men, and by the Commonalty of the Realm, there being by his Commandment, hath provided, ordained and established in form 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 Queen his mother into the Realm of England, and none other dwelling in England, who came with the said king that now is, 
Nota.  and with the Queen, In aid of them to pursue their said enemies, in which pursuit 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 king's Court, or other Court, for the pursuit of the said king, taking and with holding of his body, nor pursuit of any other, nor taking of their persons, goods, nor death of any man, or any other things perpetrate or committed in the said pursuit, from the day the said king and Queen did arm, till the day of the Coronation of the same king: and it is not the king's mind, that such offenders that committed any trespass or other offence out of the pursuites should go quit, or have advantage of this statute, but they shall be at their answer for the same at the Law. Item, that the repeal 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 Peers and Commons, by the king's assent as before 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 quarrel dead, shall have actions and recover the Goods and Chattels of them, being of the said quarrel, whose executors they be; as they of the same quarrel should, etc.  
Certainly here was an higher pursuit and levying war against the King and his evil Councillors, than any yet attempted by this Parliament; and a war rather offensive, then defensive, in which the king himself was both taken and detained Priso●r, and then forced to resign his Crown to his son; yet this is here justified, as a necessary, just and lawful war by an Act of Parliament, never yet repealed; and all that bare Arms against the king and his ill Councillors, yea they who pursued, apprehended, and imprisoned the king himself, are, as to this particular, discharged by the king, and whole Parliament from all manner of guilt, of punishment, or prosecution whatsoever against them. Which consideration makes me somewhat confident, that this King and the Parliament held in the 25. year of his Reign, ch. 2. Which declares it high Treason, to levy war against the King in his Realm, did never intend it of a necessary defensive war against a seduced King and his evil Councillors (especially by the Votes of both Houses of Parliament, who doubtless would never pass any Act to make themselves, or their Posterity in succeeding Parliaments, Traitors, for taking up mere necessary defensive Arms for their own, and the Kingdom's preservation) for that had been diametrally contrary to this statute, made in the very first year and Parliament of this King; and would have l●yd an aspersion of High Treason upon the king himself, the Queen his Mother, their own Fathers, and many of themselves; who thus took up Arms and made a defensive kind of war upon King ●dward the 2d, taking him prisoner: but only to Rebellious insurrections, of private persons, without any public authority of Parliament, or the whole Kingdom in general; and of mere offensive wars against the King without any just occasion, hostility or violence on the King's part, necessitating them to take up defensive Arms: which I humbly submit to the judgement of those grand Rabbis and Sages of the Law, and the Honourable Houses of Parliament, who are best able to resolve, and are the only judges to determine this point in controversy, by the express letter and provision of 25. Ed. 3. ch. 2. of Treasons.  
In the 
c Walsing Hist. A●gl p. 213. See Holinsh. Speed. Trussell in Ri●●. ● and Cambdens' Bri●●d, of the British Islands, p. 2●4.  first year of king Richard the 2d. John Mercer a Scot, with a Navy of Spanish, Scottish & French ships much infested the Merchants and Coasts of England taking many prizes without any care taken by the king, Lords, or Council to resist them. Whereupon john Philpot a rich Merchant of London, diligently considering the defect, that I say not treachery of the Duke of I ancaster, and other Lords who ought to defend the Realm, and grieving to see the oppressions of the people, did at his proper charge hire a thousand soldiers and set out a fleet, to take the said Mercer's ships, with the goods he had gotten by Piracy, and defend the Realm of England from such incursions: who in a short time took Mercer prisoner, with 15. Spanish ships, and all the Booties he had gained from the English: whereat all the people rejoiced exceedingly, commending and extolling Philpot for the great love he showed to his Country, and casting out some reproachful words against the Nobles and King's council who had the rule of the kingdom and neglected its defence: Whereupon the Nobility, Earls and Barons of the Realm, conscious of this their negligence, and envying Philpo● for this his Noble praiseworthy action, began not only secretly to lay snares for him, but openly to reproach him, saying: That it was not lawful for him to do such things without the advice or council of the King and Kingdom: quasi non licuisset benefacere Regi VELREGNO sine consilio Comitum & Baronum: (Writes Walsingham) as if it were not lawful to do good to the King or Kingdom, without the advice of the Earls and Barons, or Lords of the Privy Council. To whom objecting these things, and especially to Hugh Earl of Stafford, who was the chief Prolocutor and spoke most against it, john Philpot gave this answer: Know for certain, 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 engross it to myself, but pitying the misery of my Nation and Country, which now by your slothfulness, of a most Noble kingdom, and Lady of Nations, is devolved into so great misery, that it lieth 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 Earl 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 lawful for the Commons and every particular subject without any Commission from the king or his Council, in times of imminent danger, to take up Arms and raise Forces by Sea or Land to defend the king and his Native Country against invading enemies; as Philpot did, without offence or crime. Then much more may the Houses of Parliament, the representative body of the whole kingdom, and all private Subjects by their Command, take up necessary defensive Arms against the king's Popish and Malignant Forces to preserve the king, Kingdom, Parliament, People from spoil, and ruin.  
In 
c Walsia. hist. Angl p. 341.  the 8. year of King Richard the 2d. there arose a great difference between the Duke of Lancaster, & the king & his young complices, who conspired the Duke's death; agreeing suddenly to arrest and arraign him before Robert Trisilian Chief justice, who boldly promised to pass sentence against him, according to the quality of the crimes objected to him. Upon this the Duke having private intelligence of their treachery, to provide for his own safety, wisely withdrew himself, and posted to his Castle at Ponfract, storing it with Arms and Victuals. Hereupon not only a private but public discord was like to ensue; but by the great mediation and pains of jone the king's mother, an accord and peace was made between them: and this defence of the Duke by fortifying his Castle with Arms against the King and his ill instruments for his own just preservation, held no crime. If such a defence than were held just and lawful in one particular Subject and Peer of the land only, much more must it be so in both Houses of Parliament, and the Kingdom, in case the King's Forces invade them.  
In the 
e 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.  10th year of King Richard the second this unconstant king being instigated by Michael de la Pole, Robert V●ere Duke of Ireland, Alexander Nevil ARchbishop of York. Robert Trysilian. and other ill Councillors and Traitors to the kingdom, endeavoured to seize upon the Duke of Gloucester, the Earls of Arundel, Warwick, Derby, Nottingham, and others who were faithful to the kingdom, and to put them to death, having caused them first to be indicted of High Treason at Nottingham Castle, and hired many Soldiers to surprise them: Hereupon these Lords for their own just defence, raised Forces and met at Harynggye Park with a numerous Army: whereat the King being much perplexed, advised what was best for him to do. The Archbishop of York and others of his ill Council, advised him to give forth and give them battle; but his wisest councillors dissuaded him, affirming, that the King should gain no benefit if he vanquished them and should sustain great dishonour and loss if he were conquered by them. In the mean time Hugh Linne an old Soldier, who had lost his senses, and was reputed a fool, coming in to the Council, the King demanded of him in jest, what he should do against the Nobles met together in the said Park? who answered; Let us go forth and assault them, and slay every mother's son of them, and by the eyes of God, this being finished, THOU HAST SLAIN ALL THE FAITHFUL FRIENDS THOU HAST IN THE KINGDOM. Which answer, though uttered foolishly; yet wise men did most of all consider. At last is was resolved by the mediators of Peace, that the Lords should meet the King at Westminster, and there receive an answer to the things for which they took Arms; thither they came strongly Armed with a great guard, for fear of ambuscadoes to entrap them: where the Chancellor in the King's name spoke thus to them. My Lords, our Lord the King hearing that you were lately assembled at Harenggye Park in an unusual manner; would not rush upon you as he might have easily done, had he not had care of you, and those who were with you: because no man can doubt, if he had raised an Army, he would have had many more men than you, and p●rchance much blood of men had been spilt, which the King doth most of all abhor, and therefore assuming to himself patience and mildness, he hath made choice to convent you peaceably, and to tell him the reason why you have assembled so many men. To which the Lords answered, That THEY HAD MET TOGETHER FOR THE GOOD OF THE KING AND KINGDOM; AND THAT THEY MIGHT PULL AWAY THOSE TRAITORS FROM HIM, WHICH HE CONTINVALLY DETAINED WITH HIM. The Traitors they appealed were the foresaid ill Councillors, and Nicholas Brambre the false London Knight: and to prove this appeal of them true, casting down their gloves they said they would prosecute it by Duel: The King answered; This shall not be done now, but in the next Parliament, with we appoint to be the morrow after the Purification of the blessed Virgin, to which as well you as they coming, shall receive satisfaction in all things according to Law. The Lords for their own safety kept together till the Parliament, and in the mean timed seated the Forces of the Duke of Ireland, raised privately by the Kings Command to surprise them. The Parliament coming on the 11. year of Richard the second: these ill councillors were therein, by special Acts attainted, condemned of High Treason, and some of them executed; and these defensive Arms of the Lords, for their own and the Kingdom's safety, adjudged and declared to be no Treason: but a thing done to the honour of God and Salvation of the King and his Realm: witness the express words of the Printed Act of 11 R. 2. c. 1. which I shall transcribe. Our Sovereign Lord the King amongst other Petitions and requests to him made by the Commons of his said Realm in the said Parliament, hath received one Petition in the form following. The Commons prayed, that whereas the last Parliament for cause of the great and horrible mischiefs and perils which another time were fallen BY EVIL GOVERNANCE WHICH WAS ABOUT THE KING'S PERSON, by all his time before by Alexander late Archbishop of York, Robert de Veer late Duke of Ireland, Michael de la Pole late Earl of Suffolk, Rober: Trisilian late justice, and Nicholas Brambre Knight, with other their adherents, and others, Whereby the King and all his Realm, were very night to have been wholly undone and destroyed; and for this cause, and to eschew such perils and mischiefs for the time to come, a certain statute was made in the same Parliament, with a Commission to divers Lords, for the weal, honour and safeguard of the King, his regalty and of all the Realm, the tenor of which Commission hereafter followeth: Richard, etc. as in the Act. And thereupon the said Alexander, Robert, Mighill, Robert, and Nicholas and their said adherents, seeing that their said evil governance should be perceived, and they by the same cause more likely to be punished by good justice to be done, and also their evil deeds and purposes before used to be disturbed by the said 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 Realm. Whereupon Thomas Duke of Gloucester the king's Uncle, Richard Earl of Arundle, and Thomas Earl of Warwick, perceiving the evil purpose of the said Traitors, did assemble themselves in forcible manner for the safety of their persons to show and declare the said Treasons and evil purposes, and thereof to set remedy; as God would, and came to the King's presence, affirming against the said 5. Traitors appealed of High Treason, by them done to the King, and to his Realm: upon which appeal the king our Sovereign 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 appeal fully appeareth. And afterwards in great Rebellion, and against the said protection, the said Traitors, with their said adherents and others aforesaid, continuing their evil purpose, some of them assembled a great power (by letters and Commission from the King himself, as Walsingham and others write) to have destroyed the said Duke and Earls appellants, and other the kings lawful liege people, and to accomplish their Treasons and evil purposes aforesaid. Whereupon the said Duke of Gloucester, Henry Earl of Derby, the said Earls of Arundel and Warwick, and Thomas Earl Martial, seeing the open Destruction of the King and all his Realm, if the said evil purposed Traitors and their adherents, were not disturbed, which might not otherwise have been done, but with strong hand; for the weal and safeguard of the King our Sovereign Lord, and of all his Realm, did assemble them forcibly, and rove and pursued till they had disturbed the said power gathered by the said Traitors, and their adherents aforesaid, which five Traitors be attainted this present Parliament of the Treasons and evils aforesaid, at the suit and appeal of the said Duke of Gloucester, Earls of Derby, Arundle, Warwick, and Martial. That it would please our redoubled Sovereign Lord the King to accept, approve, and affirm, in this present Parliament, all that was done in the last as afore, and as much as hath been done since the last Parliament by force of the statute, Ordinance, or Commission aforesaid; and also All that the said Duke of Gloucester Earls of Arundel and W●rwicke did; and that the same Duke and Earls, and the said Earls of Derby, and Marshal or any of them did, Or any other of their company or of their aid, or of their adherents, or of any of them, or touching the Assemblies, Ridings, Appeals, and Pursuites aforesaid, * As a thing made to the Honour of God, Salvation of the King, maintenance of his Crown, and also of the Salvation of all his Realm (therefore doubtless no Treason Rebellion, nor any offence in point of Law:) and also to Ordain and Establish, that the said Duke of Gloucester, Earls of Derby, Arundel, Warwick and Martial, nor none of them, nor none of such as have been of their return, or company, force, aid or council, or any of them in the things aforesaid, nor none other person for any thing aforesaid shall be impeached, molested, or grieved at the suit of the king, nor of the party, nor in other manner, because of any assembly, riding, beating, levying of Pennons, 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, harness, armour, cattle, and other ●ovable goods, breaking of houses, or of other possessions or goods, assault, battery, robberies, thefts, coming or tarrying with force and arms, or armed in the King's presence at the Parliament, or Council, or else where. Raising 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 furnished by them, or any of them, or aught or purposed to have been 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 be quit and discharged for ever: except that the King be answered of all the goods, and cattles 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 Realm, of the assent of the Prelates, Dukes, Earls, Barons and all others of this present Parliament, do garnt the requests of the said Commons in all points, after the form of the said Petition. And moreover of the assent aforesaid, we will and grant for the greater quietness of our said Realm, though that the said Duke or Earls appellants, or any other of their company, retinue, force, aid, council or adherents, or any of them have taken, led away, or withholden any of our justicers, or any other of our ministers, in disturbance of execution of the Law of our Realm of England, or in other manner, or that they have taken any manner of person as Traitors to Us or to our Realm, or other person, and the same have voluntarily suffered to go 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 suit of us, our heirs, 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 suit of us, our heirs, or other party for any thing done at any time for to attain 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 affirm 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 year's space, during which there were 8. more Parliaments held which approved it: but in 21 R. 2. the King having 
f 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 unjustness of this unlawful packed conventicle if I may so call it.  violently seized upon the Duke of Gloucester & the Earls of Warwick and Arundel, and packed a Parliament to his mind, 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 feigned pretences, out of this old grudge, and the Acts of this Parliament to be reversed; yet not this Act, as I conceive, which is part of it, being specially saved by 21. R. 2. c. 13. But however by the statute of 1 H. 4. c. 3. 4. the Parliament of 21. was wholly repealed, reversed, revoked, voided, undone and annulled for ever, with all the Acts, circumstances, and dependants thereof: and this Parliament of 11. R. 2. Enacted to be firmly holden and kept after the purport and effect of the same; as a thing made for the great Honour and common profit of the Realm, and ch. 5. It is ordained and assented, that the Lords and other which were forejudged in the Parliament holden the said 21. year, or by Authority of the same, which now be in life, and the heirs 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 entirely as the said Lords and others which be in life, or the Lords and other which be dead, ancestors of the heirs, 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 year, by entry, without other suit 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 Sheriffs, 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 Sheriffs, Escheators, Officers and Ministers so occupying the said goods and chattels by such concealment, be punished for the same concealment.  
So that by the express resolution of these two several Parliaments, these Lords and Commons taking up defensive Arms and making war against those wicked Counsellors of this King which sought their ruin, and endeavoured the destruction of the Realm (though they had the king's presence and commissions to countenance all their actions and proceedings of this nature, and the Lords wanted the Ordinances of both houses to authorise this their arming, and war) was solemnly declared and adjudged, to be no Treason nor Rebellion at all, nor levying of war against the king, within the statute of 25. E. 3. but contrariwise; a thing done to the honour of God, the Salvation of the King, (for if the Kingdom perish or miscarry, the king as king must needs perish with it) the maintenance of his Crown, (supported only by the maintenance of the kingdom's welfare) and the Salvation and common profit of all the Realm: and this being one of the first solemn 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 certainly be the best exposition of that Law: which the Parliament only ought to interpret, as is evident by the statute of 21. R. 2. c. 3. (It is ordained and established, that every man which, etc. or he that raiseth the people and riseth against the King to make war within his Realm; and of that be duly attainted and judged in the Parliament shall be judged as a Traitor of High Treason against the Crown,) and other forecited Acts: and if this were no Treason, nor Rebellion, nor Trespass in the Barons against the king or kingdom; but a war for the honour of God, the salvation of the king, the maintenance of his Crown, the safety and common profit of all the Realm; much more must our Parliaments present defensive war against his Majesty's ill Councillors, Papists, Malignants, Delinquents, and men of desperate fortunes, risen up in Arms against the Parliament, Laws, Religion, Liberties, the whole Kingdom's peace and welfare, be so too; being backed with the very same, and far better, greater authority, and more public reasons then their war was, in which the safety of Religion was no great ingredient, nor the preservation of a Parliament from a forced dissolution, though established and perpetuated by a public Law.  
King Henry the 4th, taking up Arms against King Richard, and causing him to be Articled against, and judicially deposed in and by Parliament for his Maladministration; It was Enacted by the Statute of 1. Hen 4. cap. 2. That no Lord Spiritual nor Temporal, nor other, of what estate or condition that he be, which came with King Henry into the Realm of England, nor none other persons whatsoever they be, then dwelling within the same Realm, and which came to this King in aid of him, to pursue them which were against the King's good intent, and the COMMON PROFIT OF THE REALM, 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 King's Court, nor in none other Court, for the pursuites of the said King, taking and withholding of his body, nor for the pursuits of any other, taking of persons and cattles, or of the death of a man, or any other thing done in the said pursuit, from the day of the said King that now is arrived, till the day of the Coronation of Our said Sovereign Lord Henry. And the intent of the King is not, that offenders which committed Trespasses, or other offences out of the said pursuits, without special warrant, should be aided, nor have any advantage of this Statute, but that they be thereof answerable at the Law. If those than who in this offensive War assisted Henry the 4th. to apprehend, and depose this perfidious, oppressing tyrannical king, seduced by evil Counsellors and his own innate disaffection to his natural people, deserved such an immunity of persons and goods, from all kinds of penalties, because though it tended to this ill king's deposition, yet in their intentions it was really for the common profit of the Realm, as this Act defines it. No doubt this present defensive War alone against Papists, Delinquents, and evil Counsellors, (who have miserably wasted, spoiled, sacked many places of the Realm, and fired others in a most barbarous manner, 
* See Albaricus Gentiles de Jure Be●li lib. 2 cap. 18. 20. 21. 22. 23  contrary to the Law of Arms and Nations, and labour to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, Parliaments, and make the Realm a common Prey) without any ill intention against his Majesty's Person, or lawful Royal Authority, deserves a greater immunity; and can in no reasonable man's judgement, be interpreted any Treason, or Rebellion against the king, or his Crown, in Law or Conscience.  
In 
g Grofton, p. 625. 626 627 628. Hall. 32. & 33. H 6. f. 167. 168. Holinshead, Stow, Speed, Fabian.  the 33. year of king Henry the 6th. (a weak Prince wholly guided by the Queen and Duke of Somerset, who ruled all things at their wills, under whose Government, the greatest part of France was lost;) all things went to ruin both abroad and at home; and the Queen (much against the Lords and People's minds) preferring the Duke of Somerset to the Captain ship of Calais, the Commons and Nobility were greatly offended thereat, saying, That he had lost Normandy, and so would he do● Calais. Hereupon the Duke of York, the Earls of Warwick and Salisbury, with other their adherents, raised an Army in the Marches of Wales, and Marched with it towards London, to suppress the Duke of Somerset with his Faction, and reform the Government. The king being credibly informed hereof, assembled his Host, and marching towards the Duke of York and his Forces, was encountered by them at Saint Albans, notwithstanding the king's Proclamation to keep the Peace; where in a set Battle, the Duke of Somerset, with divers Earls, and 800. others were slain on the king's part, by the Duke of York, and his companions, and the king●● a manner defeat. The Duke after this Victory obtained, remembering that he had oftentimes declared and published abroad; The only cause of this War to be, THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE PUBLIC WEAL, and TO SET THE REALM IN A MORE COMMODIOUS STATE and BETTER CONDITION; Using all lenity, mercy, and bounteousness, would not once touch or apprehend the body of King Henry, whom he might have slain, and utterly destroyed, considering that he had him in his Ward, and Governance; but with great honour and due reverence, conveyed him to London; and so to Westminster: where a Parliament being summoned and assembled soon after; It was therein Enacted, That no person should either judge or report any point of untruth of the Duke of York, the Earls of Salisbury and Warwick, For coming in Warlike manner against the King at Saint Albans. Considering that their attempt and enterprise, Was only to see the King's Person in Safeguard and Sure-keeping, and to put and Alien from Him the public Oppressors of the Common wealth; by whose misgovernance, his life might be in hazard, and his Authority hang on a very small Thread. After this, the 
h Hall, Grift● Fabian, Caxton, Holinshed Stow, Speed, Anno 37. 38. & 39 R 6.  Duke, and these Earls raised another Army, for like purpose, and their own defence in the 37 and 38 years of H. 6. for which they were afterwards, by a packed Parliament at Coventree, by their Enemy's procurement, Attainted of high Treason, and their Lands and Goods confiscated. But in the Parliament of 39 H. 6. cap. 1. The said attainder, Parliament, with all Acts and Statutes therein made, were wholly Reversed Repealed, annulled; as being made ●y the excitation and procurement of seditious ill disposed Persons for the accomplishment of their own Rancour and Covetousness, that they might enjoy the Lands, Offices. Possessions, and Goods of the lawful ●ords and liege People of the King; and that they might finally destroy the laid lawful Lords, and Liege People, and their Issues and Heirs for ever (as now the King's ill Counsellors, and hungry Cavalleers seek to destroy the King's faithful Liege Lords and People, that they may gain their Lands and Estates; witness the late intercepted Le●ter of Sir john Brooks, giving advice to thus purpose to his Majesty:) and this Assembl● was declared; to be no lawful Parliament, but a devilish Counsel, which desired more the destruction than advancement of the Public weal; and the Duke, Earles, with their assistants were restored, and declared to be Faithful and Lawful Lords, and Faithful liege People of the Realm of England, who always had great and Faithful Love to the Preferment and Surety of the King's Person, according to their Duty.  
If then these two Parliaments acquitted these Lords and their companions, thus taking up Arms, from any the least guilt of Treason and rebellion against the King, because they did it only for the advancement of the public weal, the setting the Realm in a better condition the removing ill Counsellors, and public oppressors of the Realm from about the King, and to rescue his person out of their hands: then questionless by their resolutions, our present Parliaments taking up defensive arms, upon the selfsame grounds, and other important causes (and that by consent of both Houses, which they wanted) can be reputed no high Treason nor Rebellion against the King in point of Law; and no just, no rational judge or Lawyer can justly aver the contrary, against so many forecited resolutions in Parliament, even in printed Acts.  
The 
i Grafton, p. 847. 848 Hal. 3. R. 3. f. 55. 56. See Helished, Stew, Speed, & Barons Henry 7.  Earl of Richmund, afterward King Henry the seventh, taking up arms against Richard the third, (a lawful King, defacto, being crowned by Parliament; but an Usurper and bloody ●yrant in Verity;) to recover his Inheritance, and Title to the Crown, and ease the Kingdom of this unnatural bloodthirsty Oppressor, before his fight at Boswell Field, used this Oration to his Soldiers, pertinent to our purpose. If ever God gave victory to men fight in a just quarrel; or if he ever aided such as made war for the wealth and tuition of their own natural and nutritive Country: or if he ever succoured them which adventured their lives for the relief of Innocents', suppression of malefactors, and apparent Offenders; No doubt, my Fellows and Friends, but he of his bountiful goodness 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 virtuous. In the which I doubt not but God will rather aid us, (yea, and fight for us) then see us vanquished, and profligate by such as neither fear him, nor his Laws, nor yet regard justice and honesty. Our cause is so just, that no enterprise can be of more virtue, both by the Laws Divine and Civil, etc. If this cause be not just, and this quarrel godly, let God, the giver of victory judge and determine, etc. Let us therefore fight like invincible Giants, and set on our enemies like untimorous Tigers, and banish all fear like tamping Lions. March forth like strong and robustious Champions, and begin the battle like hardy Conquerors; the Battle is at hand, and the Victory approacheth, and if we shamefully recoil, or cowardly fly, we and all our sequel be destroyed, and dishonoured for ever. This is the day of gain, and this is the time of loss; get this day's victory, and be Conquerors; and lose this day's battle, and be villains. And therefore in the name of God, and Saint George, let every man courageously advance his standard: They did so, slew the Tyrannical Usurper, won the Field; And in the first Parliament of his Reign, there was this Act of indemnity passed, That all and singular persons coming with him from beyond the Seas into the Realm of England, taking his party and quarrel, in recovering his just Title and Right to the Realm of England, shall be utterly discharged, quit, and unpunishable for ever, by way of action, or otherwise, of or for any murder, 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 Realm against his most Royal Person, his Banner displayed in the said field, and in the day of the said field, etc.  
Which battle though it were just, and no Treason nor Rebellion in point of Law in those that assisted King Henry the 7th. against this Usurper; yet because the kill of men, and seizing their goods in the time of War, is against the very fundamental Laws of the Realm, they needed an Act of Parliament to discharge them from suits and prosecutions at the Law for the same: the true reason of all the forecited Acts of this nature, which make no mention of pardoning any Rebellions or Treasons against the King, (for they deemed their forementioned taking up of Arms no such offences) but only discharge the Subjects from all suits, actions, and prosecutions at Law for any kill or slaying of men, batteries, imprisonments, robberies, and trespasses, in seizing of Persons, Goods, Chattels.  
What our Princes and State have thought of the lawfulness of necessary Defensive sieve Wars of Subjects against their oppressing Kings and Princes, appears by those aides and succours which our Kings in former ages have sent to the French, Flemings, Almains, and others, when their Kings and Princes have injuriously made Wars upon them, and more especially, by the public aid and assistance which our 
i Speeds Hist. p. 1192. to 1197 1●. 36. 1237. Grimston. Hist. of the Netherlands, l. to. p. 611. 612. etc. and Imperial Hist. p. 730. to 856.  Queen Elizabeth and King James by the public advice and consent of the Realm, gave to the Protestants in France, Germany, Bohemia, and the Netherlands against the King of France, the Emperor, and King of Spain, who oppressed and made War upon them, to deprive them of their just Liberties and Religion, of which more hereafter. Certainly, had their Defensive Wars against their Sovereign Princes to preserve their Religion, Liberties, Privileges, been deemed Treason, Rebellion, in point of Law; Queen Elizabeth, King James, and our English State, would never have so much dishonoured themselves, nor given so ill an example to the world, to Patronise Rebels or Traitors; or enter into any solemn Leagues and Covenants with them as then they did, which have been frequently renewed and continued to this present.  
And to descend to our present times; our King Charles himself hath not only (in show at least) openly aided the French Protestants at Ree and Rochel against their King who warred on them; the German Princes against the Emperor; the Hollanders, and Prince of Orange, (to whose Son he hath married his elstest Daughter) against the Spaniard, and entered into a solemn League with them, (which he could not have done in point of Law, justice, Honour, Conscience, had they been Rebels or Traitors, for standing on their guards, and making defensive Wars only for their own and their Religion's preservation;) but likewise by two several public 
k See the acts of Pacification and Oblivion in both those Kingdoms.  Acts of Parliament, the one in England, the other in Scotland, declaring, the Scots late taking up Arms against him and his evil Counsellors, in defence of their Religion, Laws, Privileges, to be no Treason, nor Rebellion; and them to be his true and loyal Subjects (notwithstanding all aspersions cast upon them by the Prelatical and Popish Party) because they had no ill or disloyal intention at all against his Majesty's Person, Crown, and Dignity, but only a care of their own preservation, and the redress of th●se Enormities, Pressures, grievances in Church and State, which threatened desolation unto both. If then their seizing of the King's Forts, Ammunition, Revenues, and raising an Army for the foresaid ends, hath by his Majesty himself, and his two Parliaments of England and Scotland, been resolved and declared to be no Treason, no Rebellion at all against the King; by the very same, (or better reason, all circumstances duly pondered) our Parliaments present taking up Arms and making a Defensive War for the ends aforesaid, neither is, nor can be adjudged Treason or Rebellion, in point of Law or justice.  
In fine, the King himself in his 
l An exact Collection of all Remonstrances, etc. p. 329. 331.  Answer to the 19 Propositions of both Houses, june 3. 1642. Confesseth, and calleth God to witness: That all the Rights of his Crown are vested in him for his Subject's sake: That the Prince may not make use of his high and perpetual power to the hurt of those, for whose good he hath it; nor make use of the name of public Necessity, for the gain of his private Favourites and Followers, to the detriment of his people; That the House of Commons may impeach those, who for their own ends, though countenanced with any surreptitiously gotten Command of the King, have violated that Law, which he is bound (when he knows it) to protect, and to protection of which they were bound to advise him, at least, Not to serve him in the Contrary (let the Cavalleers and others consider this:) and the Lords being trusted with a judiciary power, are an excellent screen and bank between the King and people, to assist each against any Encroachments of the other; and by just judgements 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 than sufficient to prevent and restrain the power of Tyranny; by his Majesties own Confession; it must needs be such a power as may legally enable both Houses, (when Arms are taken up against them, by the King or any other, to subvert Laws, Liberties, Religion, and introduce an Arbitrary government;) not only to make Laws, Ordinances, and Assessments, but likewise to take up Arms to defend and preserve themselves, their Laws, Liberties, religion, and to prevent, restrain all forces raised against them, to set up Tyranny; else should they want not only a more than sufficient, but even a sufficient necessary power, to prevent and restrain the power of Tyranny; which being once in arms cannot be restraned, and prevented, repulsed, with Petitions, Declarations, Laws, Ordinances, or any Paper Bulwarks and Fortifications, or other such probable or possible means within the Parliaments power, 
m Alber. Gentil. de Jure Belli, li. 1. ca 13 14. 15.  but only by Arms and Military Forces, as reason and experience in all Ages manifest.  
From all which pregnant punctual domestic Authorities and resolutions of Ancient, Modern and present times, I presume I may infallibly conclude; That the Parliaments present taking up necessary Defensive Arms, is neither, Treason, nor Rebellion, in judgement of Law; but a just and lawful Act, for the public benefit and preservation of King, Kingdom, Parliament, Laws, Liberties, Religion; and so neither their General, Soldiers, nor any person whatsoever employed by them in this War, or contributing 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 Kingdom; and that all Proclamations, Declarations, Indictments, or proceedings against them, or any of them, as Traitors, Rebels, or Delinquents, are utterly unlawful, injust, and aught to be reversed as mere Nullities.  
It would be an infinite tedious labour for me to relate, what Civilians and Canonists have written concerning War, and what War is just and lawful, what not: In brief, they all generally accord; 
n Gratian causa 23. qu 1. 2. 3. and the Canonists in their Glesses on that Text. Summa Angelica & Rosel. Till Ecl Anto. Cortes. Reper. in Abatem tit. Bellum; jacob. Spi●lg & 10. Calvin. Lexi. jurid. Tit. Bel. Mar● Lauden de E●●l. Tract. Alber. Gent. de jure bell. Petrinus Belli de Re milita. & b●l●o trast. De jure b●lli B●lg. Hugae, 1●99. Hugo Grot. de Iu●e Belli et Pa●is.  That no War may or aught to be undertaken cut of covetousness, lust, ambition, cruelty, malice, desire of hurt, revenge, or for booty: propter praedam enim militare peccatum est; Whence Joh; Baptist, Luke 3. 14. gave this answer to the Soldiers who demanded of him, what shall we do? Do violence to no man: neither accuse any man falsely; and be content with your wages. Ne dum sumptus quaeritur, praedo grassetur. Which proves the Wars of our plundering, pillaging Cavalleers altogether sinful and unjust: And that such a War only is just, which is waged for the good and necessary defence of the Commonwealth, by public Edict or consent; or to regain some thing, which is unjustly detained or taken away, and cannot otherwise be acquired: or to repel or punish some injury; or to curb the insolency of wicked men, or preserve good men from their unjust oppressions; which Wars ought only to be undertaken out of a desire of Peace; as they prove out of Augustine, Gregory, Isidor Hispalensis, and others. In one word, they all accord; That a necessary defensive War to repulse an Injury, and to preserve the State, Church, Republic, Freedoms, Lives, Chastities, Estates, Laws, Liberties, Religion, from unjust violence is, and ever hath been lawful by the Law of Nature, of Nation; yea, By all Laws whatsoever, and the very dictate of Reason: And that a●n●cessary defensive War is not properly a War, but a mere Defence, against an unlawful Violence; And therefore m●st of necessity be acknowledge lawful; because directly opposite to, and the only remedy which G●d and Nature have given men against T●rannicall and unjust invasions, which are both s●●n●full and unlawful. And so can be no Treason, no Rebellion, no crime at all, thou●● our Princes or Parents be the unjust assailants. Of which see more in Hugo Gro●ius, de jure Belli, l. 2. c. 1.  
I shall close up the civilians and C●no●●●s Opinions touching the lawfulness of a Defensive War, with the words o● A●beric●●●entilis, Professor of Civil Law in the University of Oxford, in Queen Elizabeth's Reign, Who in his learned Book, De Jure Belli & Pacis, Dedicated to the most illustrious Robert Devoreux Earl of Essex; (Father to the Parliaments present Lord General:) determines thus, Lib. 1. ca● 13 pag. 92. etc. Although, I say, there be no cause of war from nature, yet there are causes for which we undertake war by the conduct of nature; as is the 
a Cle. 2. de Sent.  cause of Defence, and when war is undertaken, because something is denied to to be granted, which nature itself affords, and therefore because the Law of nature is violated, War is undertaken. We say there is a three fold Defence, one Necessary, another Profitable, a third Honest; yet we shall deem them all Necessary. 
b Bal 3. cons. 458. & S. cons. 405  He who defends himself, is said to be necessitated, neither will Baldus have us distinguish whether he defend himself, his goods, or those under his charge, whether near, or remote; His defence is necessary, and done for necessary defence, against whom an armed enemy comes, 
c Clar: §. Hemicidium.  and his against whom an enemy prepares himself: and to such a one the same 
d Bal. ad. d. l. 32. loc. Ios. Decl. l. ut Vim  Baldus truly teacheth, aid is due by compact, whom others likewise approve 
e Ap. Mitr.  This war we may say, was anciently undertaken against Mithridates, and against his great pre●aations. Neither aught wise men to expect, till he had professed himself an enemy, but to look more into his deeds, than words: Thus whiles we say necessity, we speak not properly, but we understand, that necessity which is not rare in humane affairs, and hath wont to be called need: which yet precisely is not that true necessity, etc. 
f Phil. de Principe.  It is a most unjust conflict, where the one side being agent, the other is only patient. There is a just defence, and slaying, although the slayer might flee without danger and so save himself, whether the slayer who defends himself be of that condition, that it would be a disgrace to him to flee, or whether it would be no disgrace. 
g Clra. §. bomicidium.  Which opinions are received in the causes of private men; and to me are much more approved in public causes. 
h L 3. de Iust. l. 4 ad le. Aq. Ceph. cors. 721  Defence even in Bruits is a Law of nature: 
i Cic. 2. juci. 12. fa. 3.  it is persuaded and constituted in us, not by opinion, but by a certain 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 Laws. 
k c. 3. de se exc. c. 18 de Homicide.  All Laws, all Rights permit to repel force with force. 
l Ammia 23  There is one Law and that perpetual, to defend safety by all means. 
m Cic. pro Milo,  All meanus are honest of preserving safety: this, reason to the Leagued, necessity to B●rbarians, custome to Nat●ons, nature itself to wild 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 we be assaulted by war, though we ourselves have demerited the war: which thing others, and Paulus Caestrensis have taught. And it will follow, and add this reason; because the Law or Force of war is not ended by obtaining the things first demanded; but walks according to the conquerors pleasure. 
n Aug 19 con Fav.  Who is content to repay so much revenge only 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 Arms. Witnesses, 
o Jason. l. 15. l. de in re.  judges who are enemies are repelled, although they against whom they proceed gave the cause of the enmity. 
p Con. reg. peccatum. p. 2. §. 9  To one in Arms he gives all things who denies just things: said Caesar. Neither do we hear make question of that blameless moderation, where there is no superior. These things therefore are avoided: and therefore the cause of Romulus shall be said right to me, who defended himself by war against the invading Sabines, albeit he had given them cause of war and offence, by the rape of their women. 
q Bed●● 5 de Rep. 5.  The force of necessity is so great, when men are pressed with Arms, that those things which are unjust may seem most just; as Bodin well, 
r Livy l. 8.  war is just, to whom it is necessary; & piae arma, quibus nulla nisi in armis relinquitur spes: and Arms are pious to those to whom no hope is left but in Arms. Extreme necessity is exempted from all Law. And yet I restrain not the present definition, to extreme necessity, or take extreme according to the condition of men's affairs: for be it so, let it be no necessity, which may be no necessity; Romulus might have avoided war by restoring the ravished women; yet he might likewise defend himself against the enemies even soon after marching against him. I stay not in this definition: for that is a question belonging to Citizens. 
* Costr. l. 1. de Justiniano.  He who being banished may be hurt without danger, yet he may defend himself.  

CHAP. XIIII. De utili Defension: He proceeds thus,  
I Call that a profitable defence, when we move war, fearing lest we ourselves should be warred upon: 
s Pater. l. 2.  no man is sooner oppressed than he which fears nothing, and security is the most frequent beginning of calamity. This first. Next, we ought not to expect present force, it is more safe if we meet that which is Future. There is more hope and more courage in him that infers force, then in him who repels it: he hath more courage who infers danger, than he who repulseth it, 
t Liu. 21 28.  Livy and Vigetius: if the enemy should once prevent, 
n Veget. l. 3.  all things are disturbed with fear; it behoves them therefore (saith 
x Hist. l. 5.  Nicephorus, an historian of no contemptible authority) who would live without danger, to meet with, and prevent impendent evils, and not to delay or expect, that thou mayst revenge the received injury with danger, if for the present thou mayst cut out the root of the growing plant, and suppress the endeavours of an enemy who thinks ill. And 
y Them. 1. ad Arislog.  Suidas, yea Demosthenes; war is not to be delayed but urged, least being first injured, we be compelled to repulse force. 
* Dio. l. 45.  This (as the Latin De nosthenes Cicero saith) is likewise a disgrace, that if thou mayst prevent future, thou wouldst rather redress Present evils. That rude youth likewise (so hath nature itself prescribed this Law) 
z Terent. 4. Eunu. 6.  I would rather look to ourselves, than I would be revenged having received injury: 
a Philo. de spe. Leg.  But Philo most excellently, that we presently slay a serpent at the first sight, although he hath not hurt us; nor perchance will hurt us; so careful are we of ourselves before he move himself. Am I not over-tedious to thee in naming these Authors, which yet are none of ours? But the consent of various and many authors is great reason, etc. Neither yet omit I, things held in lieu of proverbes, and therefore prove much what they signify, 
b Pers. § at. 3. Ovid. 2. de Art. Horat. ad Loll. Ep. 1.  Meet the approaching disease. Withstand beginnings; else medicines are provided over-late. Neglected fires are wont to get strength. Behold something out of the Authors of Law: 
c C. lib. 2. Tit. 41. l ul. l. Tit. 27. l. 1. & C. T. de Sica. l. 1.  It is better to keep Laws unviolated, then afterwards to seek remedy. 
d Bald. 4. cons. 111 Jas. l. 3. de Justiniano.  It is lawful to prevent: One providing to offend, I offend lawfully; and others of this nature, which are more defined to humanity, and approved by men's judgements. 
e Bal. 1. Cons. 369. 4. 312. Alex. 2. 144. Cla. §. Homicidium, Zas. l. ut vim.  No man ought to expose himself to danger: no man ought to expect himself to be smitten or slain unless he be a fool. We ought to meet the offence not only which is in act, but that likewise which is in possibility to act. Force is to be repelled and propulsed with force; therefore not to be expected; in which expectation there are also both other the foresaid certain evils, and that likewise: which is mentioned in the causes of private men, lest perchance by giving the first stroke we be slain; or lest we yield by flying, and be oppressed lying down. But not to fly is to repel force: all these things are clear, and tried, and most apt to warlike tractates. What follows, hath some doubt, when the thing may seem to come to that pass, that we must now run to this profitable defence. 
f Dec. cons. 603.  A just cause of fear is required, suspicion is not sufficient. Now 
g p. l. 5. 6. quoth met. can.  a just fear is defined, a fear of a greater evil, and such as may deservedly happen unto a constant man. But here in this great cause of Kingdoms, a fear that no damage should happen although not very great, or if there be an evident cause of fear although the danger be not true, 
h De damn. inf. l. 27. loc.  but the cause only of fear just, is sufficient: but not when a man fears that he ought not, etc. But concerning prevention there are notable things in 
i Gell. l. 7. c. 3.  Gellius. In all things to be taken heed of, there is not the same cause; neither in the affairs and actions and Offices of humane life; or of taking, or deferring, or revenging, or bereaving. To a gladiator, ready to fight this lot of fight is propounded; either to slay, if he shall prevail, or to be slain if he shall give over. But the life of man is not circumscribed with such unjust untamed necessities, that therefore thou oughtest first to do the injury, which unless thou shalt do, thou mayest suffer. And Cicero; 
k Cic. pro tu. Quict. l. 5. c. 13  who hath ever enacted this, or to whom can it be granted without the greatest peril of all men, that he might lawfully slay him, of whom he might say he hath been afraid, lest he himself might be slain afterward by him? yet rightly, notwithstanding, the Mitileins against the Athenians, 
l Thucid. l. 3.  If we seem injurious to any, if we have first failed, not tarrying till we might plainly know, if they would do us any hurt: he doth not rightly consider: for if we had been of equal power, we might safely lay ambushes for them again, and we might delay: then he should speak truth: but since they have always with them a power of hurting, it beseemed us to have this power, that we might anticipate a defence. Why again do we ask for Bartolusses, or Baldusses with whose bare names we might rest satisfied? and yet do not more esteem the defence of a most noble Republic, yea of Thucydides, a most noble man, and the sentence of a most wise man fortified with reason? And seeing there may not be one probable cause of fear, and generally nothing can be defined concerning it, here we shall only say, that it hath always been very considerable, and at this day, and hereafter it is to be considered, that potent and ambitious Princes may be resisted, for they being contented with no bounds will at last sometime or other invade the fortunes of all men. 
m Zonarus.  Thus the Romans move war against Philip, lest Greece being subdued, he should first make war upon them. Thus 
n Pausanias, ●. 1.  Lysimachus, when Demetrius had gotten the Kingdom, fearing lest he should provoke him, first moved war, for he knew that Demetrius had it from his father, always to think of promoting the Empire. Thus the 
o Hero lib. 7.  Lacedaemonian Ambassadors, move the King of Sicily to war, because all the rest of the Grecians being overcome by Persa, he might in like manner stir up ware against the Siculi: Men say, by helping us thou mayst defend thyself. Thus the 
p Xenop. 5. Graec.  Lacaedemonians themselves, persuaded by the Acanthii took up war against the Olynthi: who by conquering their neighbours every where, and proceeding always to further parts, they made no end of wars and of increasing their dominion. Thus the 
q Liv. lib. 7.  company for the Fidicini against the Samnites, and they say. We have fought in word for the Fidicini, in deed for ourselves. when we saw a neighbouring people, to be set upon by the wicked plundering of the Samnites: and when the Fidicini had been inflamed, that fire would hereafter be transferred upon us: which also 
r Thut. lib. 6.  Herm●crates a just man of Syracuse: doth any of us think, that a neighbour further off being already overcome the calamity will not come upon him also? Thus 
s Salu. frag:  Perseus, thus Metridates did move and call in others against the power of the Romans: for neither are occasions of war wanting to those that aspire to the Empire, and now they are hated for their power. Which thing 
t Dion lib. 9  Appius somewhere saith to those his Romen; and it appears most true; for by aiding their confederates and friends, presently they got the Empire of the whole world. But to omit these manifold examples, which even 
u Bod. 5. de rep. ult.  others have thus noted, and which do thus declare to us the Law of Nations, which we seek; might not all men most justly withstand the Turk on that side, and the Spaniard on this, meditating dominion every where and plotting it? for indeed the Turk wrongs not many, nor yet the Spaniard, neither can the one or other do it; but they both do injury to some, and he that doth wrong to one, threatens many: shall wars themselves be expected? 
x P Syr●  we have heard of the Turks before, and we all see it: if any one discerns it not of the Spaniards; he may hear of P. Jovius, that the nature of these are both impotent and greedy of bearing rule; and when they have once crept in, endeavour always by all means to attain the highest power. Therefore we ought to resist; 
y Jou. lib. 1.  and it is 
z Ari. 5. pol.  better to beware that men increase not too much in power then to seek remedy afterward against the mighty. 
a Hier. Epi. 2.  While the enemy is little, kill him. Wickedness, lest Tares grow, is to be crushed in the seed. Why are not these sayings of Hierome pertinent even here? We cannot jointly resist a common danger: 
b Bal. 2. cons. 2. 6. 6.  a common fear unites even those that are most divided and furthest off: and that by the instinct of nature, and our 
c Dion l. 6.  Baldus teacheth out of Aristotle; This is the reason of Empyres, that they may not hurt; as he, whosoever he was said well in Dionysius, and nothing more true, 
* Ovid. 5. Fast. Posse u●cere sat est; Quodque p●● testalios perdere, perde. prior.  and uttered as it were from an Oracle, In the judgement of Bodin: 
d Plut. Pomp.  It is sufficient to have power to hurt, and that which can destroy others, dee thou destroy first: as aptly here the witty Poet; and truly it is very grievous, that we may possibly suffer an injury although we do not suffer it: as 
e Bal. 2. cors. 195. 202.  Plutarch speaketh: and 
f Apul. de m●nd  Baldus, that it is lawful to use means for resistance: nor ought it to be in the power of an adversary to hurt us if he would: and that we ought to consider, that which hurteth, and that which can hurt. Even the continuing of concord among the elements is this, by 
l Polit 4. Ep. ●. Guic. lib. 1.  equal proportion, and while in none, one is subdued of the other: o And this is that, which that most wise, most desirous of peace, and father of peace, Laurencius Medici's procured always, that the affairs of the Ita●an Princes should be balanced with equal weights, whence both Italy might have peace, which both it had whiles he lived, and was the preserver of this temper; and which peace ceased when he deceased, and that temperature. The great offspring of Medici's, was a great safeguard both to his own City and the rest of Italy: doth he not as yet endeavour this, that one should not be able to do all things, and all Europe come under the command of one? unless some be able to resist the Spaniard, Europe will certainly fall. 
g Ans. Edeg.  If any will pull a middle stone out of the wall, upon which all relies, the rest being carried together will follow. 
h Polyb. lib. 2.  No, this must never be permitted, that the dominion of any should grow so great, as neither to doubt before so much as of most manifest injustice, which Polybius saith, and saith again: whence Hero therefore aided the Carthaginians against the Mercenaries, lest the Carthaginians being oppressed, the Romans should be able to do all things. This 
i Li●. l. 42.  Livy of the divers conceits of men upon the war of the Romans, and Perseus, that some favoured him, some them, but there was a third part, the best and most prudent, who would have neither part to become more powerful, the other oppressed, for so themselves should be in the best condition, always protecting them from the injuries of the other: And these things ingeniously, Marcus Cato for the Rhodians: who thorough hatred to the Romans, 
k Gellius l. 7. 3.  by their good will at least, or wishes had favoured Perseus, They would not that we should have conquered the King: but also many other people, and many Nations; and partly not for reproach sake, but because they feared, that if there were no man whom we stood in awe of we might do what we list, and every one of us, if any think any thing to be attempted against his own estate, doth even with his strength contrarily endeavour that it be not attempted against him. This the Ambassador of Persius had thus discussed before the Rhodians, that they ought to endeavour, that the right and power of all things be not devolved to one people. Cato adds, that their will ought not to be punished so much, because it ought to be discerned more certainly. 
l Dion. l. 38.  Caesar doth not contradict, who thus disputes of raising of war against King Ariovistus, that he ought to be punished before he became great, or should do any evil, even because he had a thought to do them hurt. Neither ought this to be understood of the naked thought, and bare will; but of that which hath assumed the Act, declared in another 
* L. 225. d. v. 8.  place; that King was now fearful to the Romans in France, and his Arms threatened danger: Caesar therefore wisely and justly thought that there was no further delay to be made, but that he might restrain Arms with Arms. The 
n Jou. l. 34.  Swissers lately very wisely, that they will favour neither the French nor Emperor, but would keep a league with them both, until their Armies should not be hurtful to the Helvetiin Commonwealth. But I conclude, the defence is just which prevents dangers already meditated of, already prepared; and also not thought upon, but very likely, possible: yet neither this last simply; or would I call it just, to endeavour this war, as soon as ever any should be made too potent; which I do not affirm. For what if any Prince's power should be increased by successions, by elections; wilt thou trouble him with war, because his power may be dangerous to thee? Another thing therefore must be added concerning justice. We will add to others, who what they have thought of a just war, attend.   

CHAP. XV. Of Honest Defence.  
IT remains to speak of honest defence, which is undertaken without any fear of danger to us, sought for no want of our own, for no profit, but only for other men's sakes, 
a L 3. de ju. & ju.  and it resteth upon this foundation, that (as Marcus Tullius saith) nature hath ordained among men affinity, and love, and good will, and the bond of good will, and that the law of nations is placed in the society of men, which therefore is called by Cicero also, 
b Cic. 3. de si.  Civil. 
c Plut. de Vi. Alext  Thus Verily the Stoics would have the City of the whole world to be one, and all men to be commoners, and townsmen; and like one Herd feeding together in a Common ground. 
d Niceph. gr. li. 4.  All this that thou beholdest, wherein heavenly and earthly things are contained, is one; and we are members of one great body, and the world itself is one 
e Sen. ep. 96.  body. But Nature hath made us allied, seeing she hath begotten us of the same, and in the same, also endued us with mutual love, and hath made us sociable. e And this our society is most like the joining of stones, in a wall; which would fall, if the stones did not withstand, and uphold one another, as Seneca excellently; and which as 
f Gel. lib 6.  Gellius, consisteth, upholden as it were, with a mutual contrariety and support. 
g Hor. ad 100 ep. 1.  This is the desagreeing concord of things, as Horace speaks, and we also before. And now thou hearest that all the world is one body, and all men are members of this one body, and thou hearest the world to be an house, and to be a City; which hear again, for they are beautiful. The world is the greatest house of things, thus Varro. 
h Sen. ult. ben.  Man is a sociable creature, and being borne for the good of all, looks upon the world as one house: thus Seneca: 
i Lact. de ira, Dei. c. 10.  again Lactantius saith, the world is a Commonwealth, having one form of government, and one Law; 
k Phi. lose  Philo, there is one Commonwealth of all and a common City of all. 
l c. Apol M act.  Tertullian, Minutius, and also in Aristotle, There is one great City: what an harmony is here of wise men? Add touching Society that of Cicero; Society in the largest extent, 
m Arist. de mu.  (which though it be often said we must repeat more often) is of men towards men, 
n Cic. 3. de office Laet.  more inward, of those that are of the same Country; nearer of those that are of the fare City and in another place: We are so borne that there may be a certain Society between all; but greater as any one is nearer: Citizens are be ter●ban strangers; kindred han Foreigners. And thus doth 
o Aug 19 de civ.  Augustine note there societies; the first of the household, the second of the City, the third of the world, and saith, all the Nations in the world are joined together by humane society. But what is this society and conjunction? Among the good there is as it were a necessary benevolence, which spring of friendship, is constituted of nature; but that same goodness belongs also to the multitude; for virtue is not inhuman, nor cruel, nor proud, which will not look upon all people, writeth Cicero; and 
p Ambet 3. de oft. 3.  Ambrose, the law of nature binds us to all charity; that one should bear with another, as members of one body: and so also 
q Bal c de pri. do.  Baldus, we are borne for our own and for strangers by the bond of Charity: those that say, care aught to be had of Citizens, deny it of strangers, these men take away community and society of mankind. Also Cicero: which 
r Lact. 6 Instit. 6.  Lactantius both citeth and hath approved. And the same Cicero. 
s Ci. c. 7. Alt: 2.  It is a filthy opinion of them, 
t Arist. 1. pol. & Psal. 107. 7 123.  who refer all things to themselves, filthy indeed, for man is borne for society, and it is his 
* Gal. 6. & 1. petr. 4.  duty to help others, and not live to himself only: and for this cause Cicero condemned the Philosophers, because while they lacked one kind of justice, and (as 
x Hier. Ep. 14.  another holy man writes) fulfilled indeed the greatest part of equity, not to hurt any, they offended against the other, because they forsook the society of life, and so forsook this part of justice, to profit when thou canst; 
y Claud. 4. cons Herald  Dost thou not see how the world itself, the most beautiful of all works doth bind itself with love? we are 
z Rom. cons. 420.  bound by the Law of nature (so says the interpreter of the Law) to be profitable every way: and the 
a Dec. cons. 469 not l. 3. l. 5. de just.  same men deliver an equal defence of their own and of strangers, but specially of confederates, from whom we must keep off an injury; and that this defence is both of divine and humane law. 
b Plat. 9 de leg.  Plato thinks, he ought to be punished that keeps not back an injury offered to another. Now that which Plato and these Interpreters say of private Citizens we may very well apply to Princes and people: for what reason there is of a private man in a private City, there is the same in the public and universal City of the world, of a public Citizen, that is, of a Prince, of the people of a Prince: 
c Bal. 2. cons 195.  As a private man hath relation to a private man, so a Prince to a Prince, saith Baldus, 
d Sen. 1. 2. de Ira.  A man is a Citizen to a man in the greater City, and borne for mutual succour saith Seneca. And because we are one body, if one member will hurt another member, it is meet the others should help that which is hurt, because it concerneth the whole, even that which hurteth, that the whole be preserved. So men should help men, for society cannot be preserved, but by the love and safety of the people. 
e Xiphil.  Vespasian cannot be approved who denies aid, I know not to whom, upon this pretence, because the care of other men's affairs appertained not to him: for what good man is there who doth nothing but for his own sake? 
f Cic. 7. fa. 12.  Cicero again, even to 
g Procop. 2. pers.  Lazius King of Persia, that he is not therefore just, because he doth nothing unjustly, unless also he defended the unjustly oppressed; and by that means they obtained help, and bands of Soldiers against the Romans: for it is not a strange thing amongst men for a man to defend the estates and safety of men, 
h Cicer. pro Quin.  Cicero had said the same; he should have respect if not of the man, yet of humanity, which is due to every one from every one, for this very cause, because they are equally men: and humane nature the common mother of all men commends one man to another, 
i Iust. Goe an. 3.  It is a noble example of the barbarous King of Mauritania: who, when he heard that his enemy Alfonso king of Castille, was pressed and almost oppressed by the Armies of his son, he sent a huge mass of gold unto Alfonso, he himself went over with a great Army of Soldiers into Spain, judging it a most unworthy thing that his Son should expel his Father from his Kingdom; adding withal, that the victory obtained, he would be an enemy again unto the same Alfonso. What? do I fear the Barbarians, enemies also, and bringing gifts? That the deed of an enemy should be taken in the worst sense? doth 
k L. 6. de Ex  Guiceardine say truth; that these things are not done of any but in hope of some profit? The saying of Guicciardine is dispraised by noble Mountaygn in those his Noble examples? I demand of what right it is? It is a question, if any be bound by Law to defend another, when he can? and they seem commonly to deny this and the 
l Lib. 21. de he. vel. ac. ve.  Law sometimes saith, that we may without offence neglect other men's affairs: but our proper question is; if any can thus justly defend another? 
m Castr. l. 2. de just. Al. 7. 17. 27. Clar. f. q 87 & Homicidium: De cons. 678.  wherein no man denieth just defence, even for the defence of a stranger it is lawful to kill another, by the opinion which is approved of all Doctors: 
n Lib. 6. de app. jas. l 3. de iu. Dec. cons. 691 Ceph. 712 Cuia. 20. obs. 20.  yea, the defence of him is approved, that neglects to defend himself, yea that refuseth to be defended by another; whether a friend defend him or another, even an enemy: and thus it is called the rule of humanity, and so 
o L. 39 dene. ge. 1. segq.  a benefit to be conferred often times upon the unwilling. So also there be many other definitions. Also they conclude by an argument, not firm enough that way, in another question: that a man may take money for defending another, which he should receive dishonestly, if he were bound to defend him by law: for may not a servant get a reward from him whom yet notwithstanding he might not neglect without punishment? neither is it dishonestly given nor dishonestly taken, in way of thankfulness. 
p L 5. qui s. ma ad li per. Plam 9 de leg.  So it is not ill taken of a Citizen from a City, nor by a son from a father: for truly it is manifest, that many things cannot be done without offence; and therefore if done they are worthy of rewards, yet not of punishment, if they be not done. Again, somethings on the contrary neglected, indeed contract offence, but reform they merit not glory, so Bernard: to which I add a mean, that there be some things which being neglected contract offence, and fulfilled, deserve reward. 
q jas. d. l. 3. Eug. cons. 86.  But also even in the Court of conscience they will have a man to be bound to defend a man. 
r Bal. l. ul. c. de ju. de imp.  But conscience is the will of a good man, yea of the best: but they deliver this also even in the way of honesty: and we follow honesty here, and that arbiterment: 
s Alc. l. cons. 27. Mol. ad Dec. l. 3. de reg.  but both in Civil and Canon Law, against the rest Bartolus inclines thus: Albericus, Igneus, Decius, Alciatus, Molineus, so teach: and 
t Bal. 4. cons. 111. l. 1. C. de ser. fug.  Baldus elegantly, that it is a fault to omit the defence of another; of himself, a treachery: which also in another place he determines. Plato is also of this mind: and thus also 
u Eccle. 4.  Siracides: free him to whom injury is done, out of the hand of the injurious. I also am of the same mind, especially, if, which the forenamed interpreters add, defence be not made with the danger of the defender. 
x Bal. l. 1. de of. pr. vi.  For no man is bound to put himself in danger; no man is bound so to assist against a fire. 
y Nic. Cal. 7. his. 29.  Otherwise thou hearest Constantine say, that they which live by the rule of God's Law, account an injury done to another, to be their own. Behold that thus also he aided the Romans against Maxentius. Hear again Baldus his Lawyer, he that defends not, nor resists an injury, is as well in fault, 
z Cic. 2. deoff.  as he that forsakes his parents, or friends, or Country: and if these be true in private men, how much more will they be in Princes? These mutually call themselves Cousins, Cousin-germen, Brothers. They are so much the more true in Princes, by how much if a private man defend not a private man, the magistrate remains, that can both revenge the wrongs, and repair the losses of private men, but there is none can piece up the injuries and hurts of Princes, but the same Prince, who after had rather apply a medicine to the evil, than hinder at the first that evil be not done. These things are true, but that also you may hold with 
a Bal l. 10. 10. c. de op. le.  Baldus that although these were not true out of Philosophy of judgements, which is of things necessary: they are certainly true from Philosophy of manners: which consists of things persuaded, which Philosophy also we follow in this whole Treatise. The Philosophy of judgements, permits a man to neglect even himself, as Baldus writes, and if besides, as it falls out almost always, another special cause be joined to this general rule of honesty, it may come nearer to justice. Let the opinion verily be true for me, that this cause of honesty alone, perchance hath never moved any man to that honest defence. 
b Guic. lib. 2.  Guicciardines' mouth said truly, no Prince will make war for Peasants, unless persuaded with desire of his own gain: yet that is ignominous to Princes and savours not of justice: but I had rather concur with Leo the Philosopher. We know very few to keep true love, for its sake alone to be stirred up to succour those that are entangled in misery, but on the contrary side, that the number is very great of those that for hope of getting any thing, come to help the unworthy: which is a more mild saying, and I think more true. But I seek another thing, it is complete justice which defends the weak: so 
d Ambr. 1 de oft. 27. c. 5. 23. q 3.  Ambrose, and the Canon Law, and I seek for that justice. The Romans also joined this cause with others by which they were moved often times to make war: 
e Dlon sol. de legis.  the defence of the Lucan's (saith Dionysius) was the manifest cause of the Samniticall war, which might have a show of honesty, as common, and a national custom of the Romans to aid those that fled unto them: but the secret cause which did more urge, was, the power of the Samnites was great, and greater would it have been, if the Lucan's had been subdued, so the reason of profit lies hid: and therefore seems not so good, as it is honest: and yet we call profitable also, good and just, and the one is made just by the other: therefore what if they be dear unto us whom we should defend? 
f l. 5. qui ex ca in po. ea.  Vlpianus saith, that for love and friendship, for no other reason defence ought not to be omitted. The defence of those that aught to be dear unto us, is from nature, witness M. Tullius. What, if our allies and confederates? 
g Anb. de off.  He that keeps not of an injury from his fellow when he can, is as well in fault, as he that doth it. Ambrose, and 
h Liv. 31. 34.  even we ourselves are hurt when our fellows are hurt: as in Livy. 
i ●● de Repub. ult.  john Bodin judgeth amiss, that an ally and a confederate is not bound to help his fellow, if there be no caution of help in the league; and the contrary is now showed by us, and also shall be showed in the third book. 
k Plut. Apoph.  What if they be of the same stock and blood? Agesilaus made war against the Persians, that he might bring the greeks of Asia into liberty. And the petty Kings of 
l jov. l. 23.  Germany by an old custom of the Nation, think it an heinous offence, not to be assistant to those that implore mutual help: although there is there besides a certain body of a Commonwealth: as it is reported long since, that there was of the Achai. What if of the same Religion? 
m Oros. l. 5. c. 2.  Nations are joined together by the tie of Religion, more than either by the communion of another law, or contract of a league: and therefore if we implore nature by communion, the law of Nations by covenant, the Commonwealth by laws, by common Religion (the most powerful thing of all) we implore the bowels of men and of the holy One, who is the head of that communion. 
n Procop. 11. Pers. & Call. l. 7. c. 57  So there was war with the Persians, because their fugitives were not delivered them, and they were not delivered by the Romans, who would not despise the humble professors with them of the same religion, who fled from the Persian cruelty. Thus Justinus answered the Persian, that he could not but receive those of the Christian Religion, falling away to him from the Persian, who compelled them to forsake Christian Religion. 
Alcd. 38. §. Sacra. de V. O.  And our writers do thus resolve, that war may be made if any converted to Christian Religion, should be oppressed by their Lords, and that for the right of society contracted from conversion. What if neighbours? 
p Cic. pro Planc.  for what? had I not very many, very just ties of familiarity, of neighbourhood of country, of friendship to defend Plancus? saith Cicero. And here is our case. q We are in danger if our neighbour's house be on fire, for if fire have fiercely taken hold of some houses, they will hardly be defended but that the next houses will be burnt, which was elsewhere in Sallust, and now in Ovid. s Fire that is near is hardly kept off from houses: it is good that we abstain from near adjoined places: which verses are proverbial in this thing; and proverbes add some credit. This notes something that as it is lawful to pull our neighbour's house down, lest the fire should come to us: and that question of a 
x Decia. Cons. 651.  house infected is the same, although touching this it is answered contrary: 
y Levit. 14.  Yet the House infected with Leprosy was pulled down 
z L. 29. ubi gl. de l. Aq:  And in many cases it is so, that we may do ill to others, that it be not ill with us. We must beware of all contagion, especially of our neighbours: the ill contagions of a neighbouring People are hurtful. 
a Ibo. l. 1.  The Romans (saith Florus) as a certain infection ran over all, and taking in all the nearest people, brought all Italy under them, and whatsoever Dominion they had 
b Eccl. 22.  Before fire is the vapour and smoke of the Chimney, Syracides also. So we see smoke from our neighbour's fire, and will we not run and put out the fire where it is? It is 
c C. 6 de seaexe 6. Eug con. 90  written again, that it is lawful for any to help his neighbour against an injury, yea, he seems to be partaker of a fault, who doth not aid his deadly foe, even speaking against help, nor yet desiring it. Concerning which I have noted before, and will note further in the Chapter following.   

CHAP. XVI. Of aiding Subjects that are Strangers against their Lord.  
I Demand, if we may justly defend Subjects also that are Strangers against their Lord? What if their cause also be unjust? 
a Lib. 1. de Offi. 13.  Ambrose noteth those three gods, jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto, have thus Articulated, lest upon their entrenching on one another's jurisdiction, they might make War among themselves: they should not usurp the rule of the Sea, etc. 
b Euri. Hip.  They say likewise, that we gods have this Law, none of us will cross the desire of him that willeth but we yield always one to another. Which being the fictions of very wise men, are applied unto Princes of the earth. But even without any circumstance at all, the Corinthians speak thus to the Athenians: 
c Thuc. l. 1.  We do plainly deny that any is forbidden to punish his own: for if thou shalt defend those that have offended, even your own Subjects will defend themselves from you. Yet I think not Subjects of other men are altogether strangers from that neerensse of nature, and union of Society, you do also cut off the unity of mankind, whereby life is sustained, as excellently 
d 4. de Benes.  Seneca. And if we make not Princes lawless, tied to no Laws nor Conditions: It is necessary, that there be some to admonish them of their duty, and may hold them fast bound; which reason I expounded in the second Book of Embassies. Neither will I here infer any confusion of kingdoms, or any inspection of one Prince over another Prince: neither do I suffer those things to be distinguished, which are most firmly glued together by nature, I mean, that kindred with all, among all. Neither here otherwise may one Prince have inspection over another Prince, but such as may happen by every other War, wherein one Prince carries himself as a judge both of himself, and of another. If a question were among private men, it were most unjust to go to a Foreign Prince about it. Also if there arise a difference between a private man and his Sovereign, there are Magistrates appointed which may be sought unto. But when the controversy is touching the Commonwealth, there neither are, nor can be any judges in the City. I call that a public matter, when such, and so great a part of the Subjects is moved, that now there is need of War against those that defend themselves by War. And as if those should come into part of the Principality of the public, and are Peers to the Prince, who can do so much as he. 
e Ceph. 612.  Even as one King is said to be equal to another, who can resist another offering wrong, however greater, and more powerful; although I say not these things of the Subjects themselves, unless it be in respect of Foreign Princes, which will aid the Subject against their Sovereign, and who can aid them no otherwise then in a controversy, 
Con. Regn. Pecca. par. p. 9 Bod. l. 2. de Rep. c. 5. & l. 5. c ult. Cic 3. de Off.  as I have expounded, of the Commonwealth. f And indeed, if the Subjects be used more cruelly and unjustly, this opinion of defending is approved even of others, who both bring that laudable example of Hercules, the Lord of Tyrants and Monsters. There is also the example of Constantine, who aided the Romans against Maxentius, as I noted before. 
g Bal. lib. 4. c. de just. & subst.  We defend Sons against injust Fathers. Add now those golden Sayings of 
h Sen. ult. de Benef.  Seneca. That being cut off, whatsoever it was, whereby he did cleave unto me, the Society of humane right is cut off. If he do not impugn my Country, but is burdensome to his own, and being banished my Country doth vex his own, yet so great naughtiness of mind hath cut him off: although it maketh him not an enemy, yet hateful unto me. And the reason of the duty which I owe unto mankind, is both more precious, and more powerful with me, then that which I own to one single man. Thus verily; or else we make all men foreigners to all Princes, if we determine that they can do according to their pleasure and lust. Now what if the cause of the Subject be unjust? The foresaid Authors deny, that men ought to aid unjust Foreign Subjects, lest any by so aiding introduce the same Law into his own Kingdom, which the Corinthians did before. Yea, 
i Eph. 5. 9 Caesar. 〈◊〉 de si c. ●  Aristotle thinks, that neither a wicked Father is to be loved nor assisted with help. But this is false of a Father, as I taught in a certain Disputation, perhaps it is more true, that those may be defended of us by war, who are unjust. For if it be a just war which is to repulse a wrong, although they that repulse an injury, have given occasion to the war: the same it seems may be determined in the defence of others, even of Subjects, for the same reason. Surely there is that iniquity in War, that it will make the same man to pronounce law to himself in his own cause, or verily willing to pronounce it. Upon which pretence another Prince may bring aid on the contrary side, that things may more civelly be composed without war. And this is that which 
k Plu. Pyrrh.  Pyrrhus did when he came to aid the Tarentines against the Romans; he admonished them first, that they would by their own endeavour put an end to the Controversy; although neither the Romans would not unjustly hearken unto the King; or because they might deservedly suspect him, as being sent for by enemies, armed with enemies, ready to fight for enemies, and of kin to enemies. 
l 〈◊〉 cons. 224. Ceph. 57 Bal l. 1 de ser. fug.  He that stands armed with another, is said to bring help and aid unto him; neither is there need to prove any thing against that at all. Even he that arms himself, is believed to think upon war. And 
m Alex. 7. cons. 2. Ceph. 721.  if he that is the friend of an enemy be excluded from being a witness, much more from being a judge. 
n jas l. 16 de Iurisd. Cic. pro Com. Ceph 750.  For it is easier, if any be received for a witness then a judge; 
o L. 47. de re in l. 28. C. de ●os. te.  The friend of my enemy is not presently meant my enemy, as neither my friends friend is my friend; but there is a great suspicion of them both, and of the friend of an enemy the more. But I return to the question. 
p Leo-nou. 103  We are bound both to defend justly unjust Sons against the cruelty of a Father, or Servants against the cruelty of a Master; and we laudably endeavour that by fury (here is War) no not wicked men should be chastened and punished, for fury and war have no measure. 
q L. 5. Bal l. 4. C. de ser. Cor.  And he that led by humanity or pity, or any other approved and just cause, hath received another man's Servant, is not bound by the Statute of a corrupt Servant, and that reception is accounted in the nature of good, etc. 
r Plut. quo nutr. li. Heir. ep. 9  Even he is commended, who being angry with his servants committed them to be punished by another, this commendation being added, because he himself was angry. Therefore a good Prince will have the Liberty of rage against his own Subjects to be taken from him, being angry, as a good Father, as a good Master, and he will always judge, That Kingdoms were not made for Kings, but Kings for Kingdoms, which is most true. This also of Plato availeth, that we ought to use Eloquence, chiefly to accuse our friends, to whom it is the best, thus to be drawn from future evils. And so I think that we may defend unjust Foreign Subjects, yet to this end only, for the keeping off immoderate cruelty and too severe punishment: 
s Alex l. 20. Sol. mu.  Seeing it is not inhuman to do good to those that have offended. Yet I dare affirm, that this reason of bringing help doth seldom stand alone, but that another of necessity and profit may be pretended, or truly shown, as is said before. Behold now is the greatest question: If the English have justly aided the Hollanders because their cause was unjust, & the Hollanders were even now Subjects to the Spaniards? both which notwithstanding are false. It was said, that a War was to be undertaken upon that occasion, that a good Peace might be obtained of the Spaniard, which otherwise, as is thought, could not have been had: 
t Cells. l. 5. de just.  And so truly War is lawfully undertaken, as 
u Cells. 3. c. 9 Hypp. deloc. in hom.  our men allege: And the most wise reason of the Physicians maketh for it, That if any Fever be slow which holds the body, and which yields to no cure, than the Disease is to be changed, yea, to be augmented and heightened. For when it doth not receive cure for the present as it is, it may receive that cure which is future. But even War might have been undertaken without that evil of an unfaithful Peace. As there be many bonds of nearness between the English and the Hollander: the ancient friendship with the Dukes of Burgundy, the familiarity of these people, and the old Consanguinity; all the rest, which are noted at the end of the former Chapter. And therefore with Cicero, 
x Cic. prosy  They think not that the nocent are not to be defended, if they be the friends of a good man. Add one thing of great moment, that the Hollanders overcome in War, should altogether change their condition, and we see it in the conquered part, being for the most part, cast down from their ancient Liberty, and for the most part oppressed with Garrisons, are governed now only at the pleasure of the Prince. But this our Neighbours cannot endure. 
y l. 3. de holi. ex.  Neither is any other forbidden to favour Liberty. But 
z L. 54. de Leg.  it much behoveth Neighbours to have a Neighbour. 
a Nat. ad Alex cons. 197. Bal l. 9 C. de Pa. in m. 7.  For if one man hath need of another man, what shall we say that one Neighbour is to another, saith a Pindarus, and b Callimachus: Ill Neighbours are odious to me, and 
c Heb. Apoph. 1 c 3.  some wise Hebrew, The worst of all diseases is an ill Neighbour: And another of the same Nation, Woe to the wicked, and woe to his Neighbour. 
g Plu. Apoph.  And where may 
d Hes. 1. op. op.  Moral Fables be silent? 
e Fair. 1. c 7  An evil neighbourhood is like a misfortune; 
h L. 33. de con. 'em. Com. Pii. 2. li. 19  The vicinity of great Men is always to be shunned of the weaker; 
f Alc. Emb. 164. Plut. Euth.  Good men receive good things from good Neighbours, and evil Men, evil things, etc. So * Plato, and so Th●mistocles; When he sold a piece of ground, he commanded the Crier to Proclaim, that it had a good Neighbour: Which 
h L. 33. de con. 'em.  Interpreters note, to the Law. And there be many things of the same kind. Wherefore neither if these neighbouring Subjects would change their condition, neither if by reason of a fault committed against their own King, they be compelled to alter it, is another Neighbouring Prince compelled to suffer it, to whom neither another man's will nor offence ought to bring damage. The 
i Com. Pij. 2. li. 10.  Venetian Ambassadors when they interceded for Sigismond of Maltesta, to Pope Pius the second, they spoke even this, that Neighbouring Princes would not have another Neighbour, whom furthermore they knew not, what he might hereafter be. And you may note, that Sigismond held Towns from the Church, and for his committed offences, he ought worthily to lose them. Perhaps some will doubt, whether these things be true in private men's causes. 
k 26. de da. inf. Alex. 2. 174.  For a private man seems to have power to do with his own what he list, if it be profitable to himself, and hurt not another. Yet these things be true thus in the causes of Empires. For Princes ought to take heed for the future, that another if he will, may not yet be able to hurt another, which is expounded in the Treatise of Profitable defence. 
l L. 1. de aq. pl. L. 8 si se. ui. Bal. 4. cons. 396.  But even that rule, that it is lawful for any to do what he list with his own, holds not otherwise; then if the condition of a Neighbour be made neither worse nor more grievous thereby: although it be true that no man may take care of the gain, which his Neighbour made, and which was owing to him by no obligation. But even security, and a certain singular conjunction of love from a Neighbour, is due to Empires: Now this we know, what things are taken away when Neighbours are changed. 
m Arist. 3. pol.  And the same people is not the same that they were, if the Commonwealth be not the same that it was. For it is not lawful (I say again) to do all things with the Subjects; for that is not lawful with the Subjects which would be a hurt, and a danger to those that are no Subjects. It is not lawful to make Forts in his own Land, 
Bal. 5. Cons. 409.  which may be terrible to those that are not his, as you shall hear in the third Book. Therefore neither is it lawful to do with his own, that which may be a terror to others. 
o Bal. q. Cons. 396.  How ever these are called equivalent, to do in his own place, and towards his own Subjects. Whether if my Neighbour should place in his House Guns, and other things against my House, may I neither be careful for myself, nor stir against my Neighbour? Thus, thus were Preparations made in Holland; and that great Noble man, Leicester, very wisely foresaw, that the defence of the Hollanders, was very wholesome and necessary for the Commonwealth, and he persuaded it to be undertaken, 
p Lyp.  lest if the Spaniards should break through that Pale of Europe, as then very wisely justus Lipsius, called it there should remain no obstacle at all to their cruelty. And thus far of War Defensive.  
Thus, and much more this our learned Professor of the Civil Law, Albericus Gentilis; whose words I have thus largely transcribed; because they not only abundantly justify the lawfulness of the Parliaments present Defensive War in point of Law, and their Ordinances of Association and mutual Defence, but likewise fully answer all the cavils and pretences of Royalists and Malignants against the progress and managing of this war, from principles of Nature, Law, Humane Reason, Equity, and humane Authorities.    

THE LAWFULNESS OF THE PARLIAMENTS present Defensive War in Point of Divinity and Conscience.  
THe lawfulness and justness of the Parliaments present necessary Defensive War, in point of Common, Civil, Canon Law, and Policy, having been largely debated in the premises, because not hitherto discussed in that kind by any, to my knowledge; I shall in the next place proceed to justify it in point of Divinity and Conscience; Wherein, though I shall be more concise than I intended, because sundry Learned * Divines, 
a Master Goodwin his Anti-cavallar. and Bone for a Bishop. Master Burrought his Lord of Hosts. The several Answers & Replies to Doctor Ferne. The honest Broker, Scripture & Reason, pleading for Defensive Arms (the best and acutest of this kind) with many others.  in many late Printed Books, common in all men's hands have professedly handled it at large, and given good satisfaction unto many unresolved scrupulous Consciences; yet because this Treatise may come into divers hands, which have not perused their discourses; and those whose judgements may be convinced by the Legal, may still have some scruples of Conscience resting in them, in regard of the Theological Part, and because some things (perchance) in Point of Theology, which others have wholly omitted, may seasonably be here supplied, to satisfy Consciences yet unresolved of the justness of the present, and all other necessary Defensive Wars, I shall not over-sparingly or cursorily pass through it, without a competent debate.  
Now lest the Consciences of any should be seduced, ensnared with generalities or clear mistakes through the mis-stating of the points in question, with which devise, many have been hitherto deluded by the Opposites, who cumbate only with their own misshapen fancies, discharging all their Gunshot against such Tenets as are not in question, and no ways coming near the White in Controversy, I shall for my own orderly proceeding, and the better satisfaction of ignorant, scrupulous, seduced consciences, more punctually state the Question, then formerly in the Legal Part; first, Negatively, next, Positively; and then proceed to its debate. Take notice therefore.  
First, 
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 Arms resist the Kings, or any other lawful Magistrates just commands, warranted either by God's Word, or the Laws of England? it being out of controversy, readily subscribed by all of both sides; that Such commands ought not so much as to be disobeyed, much less forcibly resisted but cheerfully submitted to, and readily executed for Conscience sake, Rom. 13. 1. to 6. 1 Pet. 2. 13, 14. Tit. 3. 1. Hebr. 13. 17. Iosh. 1. 16, 17. 18. Ezra. 7. 26. Eccles. 8 2, 3, 4, 5. the only thing these objected Scriptures prove, which come not near the thing in question, though our Opposites most rely upon them.  
Secondly, Neither is this any branch of the dispute: Whether Subjects may lawfully rise up, or rebel against their Prince, by way of Mutiny, Faction, or Sedition, without any just, or lawful public ground; or for every trifling injury, or provocation offered them by their Prince? Or whether private men, for personal wrongs (especially where their lives, chastities, livelihoods are not immediately endangered, by actual violent, unjust assaults) may in point of Conscience, lawfully resist, or rise up against their Kings, or any other lawful Magistrates? Since all disavow such tumultuous Insurrections and Rebellions in such cases: yet this is all which the oft objected Examples of 
b Num. 16.  Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, with other Scriptures of this Nature, do or can evince.  
Thirdly, nor is this any parcel of the Controversy. Whether Subjects may lay violent hands upon the persons of their Princes, wittingly or willingly to deprive them of their Lives or Liberties, especially, for private Injuries; or in cold blood, when they do not actually nor personally assault their lives or chastities; or for any public misdemeanours, without a precedent sentence of Imprisonment, or death against them given judicially, by the whole States or Realms, where they have such Authority to arraign and judge them? For all unanimously disclaim, yea abominate such Traitorous practices and jesuitical Positions, as execrable and unchristian: yet this is all which the example of david's not offering violence to King Saul: the 1 Sam. 24. 3. to 22. cap. 26. 2. to 25. 2 Sam. 1. 2. to 17. or that perverted Text of Psal. 105. 15. (the best Artillery in our Adversaries Magazines) truly prove.  
Fourthly, Neither is this the thing in difference, as most mistake it. Whether the Parliament may lawfully raise an Army to go immediately and directly against the very person of the King, to apprehend or offer violence to him, much less intentionally to destroy him, or to resist his own personal attempts against them, even to the hazard of his life? For the Parliament, and their Army too, have in sundry 
c See an exact Collection of of all Remon. strances, etc.  Remonstrances, Declarations, Protestations, and Petitions, renounced any such disloyal intention or design at all; for which there is no colour to charge them; and were his Majesty now alone, or attended only with his Ordinary Courtly Guard, there needed no Army nor Forces to resist his personal assaults. Yet this is made the principal matter in question by Doctor Ferne, 
d The Resolving of Conscience. The Necessity of Christian Subjection, etc. A Revindication. The Grand Rebellion, &c  by An appeal to thy Conscience, and other Anti-parliamentary Pamphlets; who make this the sole Theme of their Discourses: That Subjects may not take up Arms Against their Lawful Sovereign, because he is wicked and unjust; no, though he be an Idolater and Oppressor: That, Suppose the King will not discharge his trust, but is bend, or seduced to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, yet Subjects may not take up Arms, and resist the King, it being unwarrantable, and according to the Apostle, damnable, Rom. 13. Yea, this is all the questions the G. valleers and Malignants demand of their Opposites in this cause. What? will you take up Arms; will you fight against, or resist the King? etc. Never stating the question of his Forces, his Army of Papists, Malignants, Delinquents, but only of the King himself abstracted from his invading, depopulating Forces, against whom, in this sense of theirs, the Parliament never yet raised any Forces, nor made the least resistance hitherto.  
These four particulars then being not in question, I shall here appeal to the most Malignant Conscience: Whether Doctor Ferne, and all other our Opposites, pretenders of Conscience, have not ignorantly, if not maliciously, made shipwreck of their good Consciences (had they ever any) by a wilful mistating of the Controversy, concerning the present Defensive War, in the four preceding particulars, which they make the only Questions; when not so much as one of them comes within the Verge of that which is the real Controversy; and never once naming that in all, or any of their Writings, which is the point indeed? Secondly, Whether there be any one Text or Reason in all their Pamphlets, particularly applied to any thing which concerns the present War, but only to these four particulars, which are not in debate? And if so, (as no Conscience can gainsay it) then there is nought in all the waste Papers they have published, which may either resolve or scruple any Conscience, That the Parliaments Defensive Arms and resistance are unlawful in point of Divinity, or Conscience, which is steered by the Scriptures Compass.  
But if these particulars be not in question; you may now demand, what the knot and true state of the present Controversy, in point of Conscience, is? In few words, take it thus.  
Whether both Houses of Parliament, and the Subjects by their Authority, for the preservation of their own Persons, Privileges, Laws, Lives, Liberties, Estates, Religion; the apprehension of Voted co●tumatious Traitors, and Delinquents, the rescuing his seduced Majesty out of the power of Popish pernicious Counselors and Forces, who end avour the Kingdom's subversion, by withdrawing him from, and incensing him against his Parliament, may not lawfully with a good Conscience, take up necessary defensive Arms, and make actual Warlike resistance against his Majesty's Malignant ill Counsellors, and invading Popish Forces (who now Murder, Rob, Spoil, Sack, Depopulate the Kingdom in a most Hostile manner, to set up Tyranny, Popery, and an Arbitrary lawless Government,) in case they come armed with his personal presence, or commission, to execute these their wicked illegal designs; Especially, when neither the Parliament nor their forces in this their resistance, have the least thought at all, to offer any violence, to the Kings own person, or to oppose his Legal, just Sovereign Authority?  
Or shorter, Whether the King's Captains and Soldiers invading the Parliament, and Subjects, as aforesaid, the Parliament or Subjects (especially when authorized by an Ordinance of both Houses) may not with a safe Conscience forcibly resist these Malignants though armed with the King's illegal Commissions, without his personal presence; or with his presence and Commissions too? And for my part, I think it most evident, that they may lawfully resist, repulse them, even by Divine Authority. For the better clearing whereof, I shall premise these three undeniable Conclusions.  
First, That no lawful King or Monarch whatsoever, (much less the Kings of England, who are no absolute Princes) have any the least Authority from the Laws of God or man, personally by themselves, or instruments, to do any injury or injustice to their Subjects; how much less than by open Force to Murder, Rob, Plunder, Ravish, Ruin, or Spoil them of their Laws, Liberties, Estates, Religion, all which is plentifully proved by Law Authorities, in the premises; and punctually confirmed by these ensuing Texts. Ezech. 44 15, 16, 17. cap. 45. 8, 9 Psalm. 105. 14. 15. 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. jer. 22. 3. to 32. Obad. 2. 10. to 16. Rom. 13. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1 Pet. 2. 13. 16. and infinite Scriptures more.  
Secondly, 
2.  That all Subjects and persons whatsoever, are obliged both in point of Law and Conscience to disobey, resist, and not execute, the unjust illegal Commissions, Mandates of their Kings, and other Magistrates. This is evident by the Midwife's refusal to murder the Hebrews Male-childrens at King Pharoabs' command, for which God blessed them, and built them houses, Exod 1. 15. to 20. By Balaams' denial to curse or defy the Israelites, at King balack's entreaty. Numb. 22. & 23. & 24. By the refusal of Saul's Guard and Footmen to slay or fall on the Priests a Nob, by King Saul's personal command, though present, and not only their King but Master too: 1 Sam. ●2. 17. 18. By Jonathan's denial to kill, or consent to the death of David upon Saul's mandate, though not only his Sovereign, but Father, although he might have gained the Crown by it, and endangered his own life by refusing it, 1 Sam. 20. 27. to 42. By Saul's Armour-beares forbearance to run him thorough with his Sword, when he fled before the Philistimes, though he as his King and Master enjoined him to do it; lest the uncircumcised should come and thrust him through and abuse him. 1 Sam. 3●. 4. By Mordechai his denial to bend the knee to Haman, the great Favourite, though the King had so commanded, Esther 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. By Shadrac●, Meshach Abodnego, and daniel's refusal, to eat of the King's portion of meat and wine assigne● them, lest they should be defiled, Dan. 1. 5. to 12. By their peremptory resolution, not To fall down and worship King Nebuchadnezars golden Image, though twice strictly commanded by the King to do it, and threatened to be cast into the fiery Furance (as they were) for refusing it, Dan. 3. 4 to 30. By daniel's disobeying the Kings and Lords Jdolatrous Decree, not to offer a Petition to any God or man for 30. days, save of King Darius, under pain of being cast into the Lion's Den, Dan. 6. 5. to 24. By the pharisees and chief Priests Officers neglect to apprehend our Saviour for his Preaching, though enjoined so to do by their Masters, john 7. 32. to 48. By the Apostles refusal to give over Preaching, and perseverance in Preaching, notwithstanding the High Priests and Counsels express Inhibitions and doubled Commands, seconded with Apprehensions, Imprisonments, Scourge; and their direct resolutions in this very case, 
d See Gratian Caus. 11. q. 3.  That we ought to obey God rather than men, Acts 4. 12. to 22 cap. 5. 17. to the end. By Peter's Preaching to, and conversing with the Uncircumcised Gentiles, notwithstanding the Christian jews dislike, Acts 11. 1. to 19 with infinite Precedents of this nature in Ecclesiastical Histories; the very sufferings of all the 
c 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 King's illegal unjust commands are void in Law, and will no ways extenuate the guilt, or justify the actions of those instruments who execute them in point of Law, 
1 Pag. 10. 11. etc.  as I havef formerly cleared; so are they likewise mere nullities, and insufficient to excuse the executioners of them in point of Conscience; as is evident by, Psal. 52. 5. where God threatens to destroy Doeg the Edomite, for ever, to take him away, pluck him out of his dwelling place, and root him out of the land of the Living, for executing King Saul's bloody command upon the Priests at Nob, 1 Sam. 22. By God's exemplary punishment upon those Soldiers who by King Nebuchadnezars special command, bound the three Children and cast them into the fiery Furnace; who were slain by the flames of the Furnace, though these three Martyrs had no harm in the Furnace itself, Dan. 3. 20. to 28. By God's consuming the two Captains and their fifties with fire from heaven, who came violently to apprehend the Prophet Elijab by King Ahaziah his commission, and unjust command, 2 King. 1. 9 to 16. By the Precept of john Baptist given to Soldiers themselves, Luke 3. 14. Do violence to no man: (neither by the Kings, nor General's Command) neither accuse any falsely. By 1 Tim. 5. 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man, (no more in a violent, Military, than an Ecclesiastical sense) neither be partakers of other men's 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 err, and those th●t are led of them are destroyed. What therefore Saint john writes in another case, 2 john 10. 11. If there come any unto you (be he an Archbishop, Bishop, Archdeadon, Ferne himself, or any Court Chaplain whatsoever,) and being not this Doctrine; receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed; for he that biddeth him God speed, Is partaker of his evil Deeds: I shall apply to this particular of executing Kings unjust Commands against their people; they are partakers of their King's wickedness, if they do but entertain their unjust Commissions into their Houses or bid them God speed; much more if they execute them either voluntarily, or against their wills, out of an unworthy fear, or base respects.  
These three Conclusions being irrefragable, 
Argument ●  My first Argument to justify resistance from them shall be this. That violence against the Subject's persons, Consciences, Families, Estates, Properties, Privileges, or Religion, which neither the King himself in proper person, nor any his Officers, nor Soldiers by command from him, have any Authority by the Laws of God or man, in Law or Conscience to inflict: and which in Conscience ought not to be obeyed, but rejected as a mere nulli●y, even by the instruments enjoined for to execute it; may justly with a safe Conscience be resisted by the Parliament and Subjects; there being not one syllable in God's Word to contradict it. But the violence now offered by the King's Forces to the Parliament and Subjects every where, is such. Therefore it may justly with a safe Conscience be resisted; especially in the King's Commanders and Soldiers, who are neither the King himself, nor the Higher Powers ordained by God; and no other than plain Thiefs and Murderers in Law and Conscience, if they plunder, kill, spoil; their Commissions being but Nullities in both; and they in this particular mere private men, without any Authority to justify their actions, as I have already proved.  
Secondly, 
2  That resistance which is warranted by direct Precedents recorded, approved in Scripture even by God himself, must questionless be lawful in case of conscience: But the resistance even of Kings, their highest Magistrates, officers in the execution of their unjust Commands is thus warranted. Therefore, doubtless, it must be lawful in point of Conscience. The Minor (only questionable) is thus confirmed. First, by the notable example of the Prophet Elijah, 2 Kings 1. 2. to 16. who sending back King Ahaziah his Messengers (sent by him to inquire of Baal●zebub the God of Ekron, whether he should recover of his disease) with an harsh Message to the King, contrary to his Command, which they disobeyed; thereupon this King, in an angry fume, sent two Captains with 50. men apiece, one after another, to apprehend the Prophet for this affront; (as 
g Antiq. jud. lib. 9 cap. 1. Ipse Prophetae cum minatus vim esset, ut ni sponte sua faciat, vi coactum eo pertrahat. etc.  josephus, with other Interpreters accord,) who coming with their forces to him, said; Thou man of God, the King hath said, come down quickly. To whom he successively answered: If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from Heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty; And there came fire from heaven thereupon, and consumed two Captains and their fifties: but the third Captain and his fifty, who humbled themselves to the Prophet, and begged the sparing of their lives, were spared; the Angel of the Lord bidding the Prophet to go down with them to the King, and not be afraid. From which Text it is infallible, even by a divine Miracle from heaven, doubled by God himself; That it is lawful for Subjects in some cases, to resist the unjust violence of the Soldiers and Captains of their Kings though armed with their Regal Commands. Secondly, by the History of the Prophet Elisha, 2 Kings 6. 31, 32, 33. Who when King joram (his Sovereign) had sworn unjustly in his fury; God do so to me and more also, if the head of Elisha shall stand on him this day; and thereupon sent a Messenger before him to Elisha his house to take away his head; the Prophet was so far from submitting to this Instrument of his; that he Commanded the Elders sitting then with him in the house, to look when the Messenger came, and shut the door, and Hold him fast at the Door, though the sound of his Master's feet (the King) were behind him; whom he styles, the son of a Murderer. Might these two eminentest Prophets thus openly resist the Captains, Soldiers, and unjust Executioners of their Princes, with a good Conscience; and may not others lawfully do the like? No doubt they may. Thirdly, (If I be not much mistaken) this kind of resistance is warranted even by Christ himself, and his Apostles: For a little before his Apprehension, 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, etc.— And they said, Lord, behold, here are two Swords. And he said unto them, it is enough. Why would Christ have his Disciples buy Swords now, unless it were for his and their own better Defence, being the time when he was to be apprehended. 
h Matth. 26. Mar. 14. Luc. 22. john 18.  Soon after this Judas and his Band of men sent from the High Priests, with Swords and Staves came to seize upon Christ. Which when they who were about him saw what would follow: They said unto him; Lord, shall we smite with the Sword? His commanding them to buy Swords now, was sufficient ground for this question, and intimation enough, that they might now use them: whereupon Christ giving no negative answer; One of them which were with jesus (and John directly saith it was Peter) smote a servant of the High Priest (whose name was Malchus) and cut off his right ear. Hereupon Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye Thus far: So 
i Luc. 22. 50. 51.  Luke; Mark relates no answer at all reprehending this fact: 
k john 18. 10. 11.  john records his speech to Peter thus. Then, said jesus unto Peter, Put up thy Sword into the sheath. The Cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink? To which Matthew adds, 
l Math. 26. 52 53.  thinkinst thou that I cannot pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve Legions of Angels? But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? So that the reason why Christ bade Peter thus to put up his sword; was not because he thought defence of himself, and Peter's smiting now altogether unlawful in itself; but only inconsistent with Gods present providence, which it should seem to cross. Christ was now by 
m Acts 2. 23. Cap. 4. 27. 28. Luk. 24. 21. 26. 27. Isay 53.  God's eternal decree, and the Scriptures prediction, (which must be necessarily fulfilled) to suffer death upon the Cross for our iniquities: should Peter then, with the other Disciples have totally resisted his apprehension 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 be fulfilled: had it not been for this special reason (rendered by Christ himself, to clear all scruples against the Lawfulness of self-defence in such cases,) Peter might still have used his sword to rescue his Master from these Catchpoles violence; and if he and his fellows had been too weak to withstand them, Christ was so far from imagining that he might not have lawfully defended himself; that he informs them, he could (and would no doubt) have presently commanded whole Legions of Angels from heaven, by his Father's approbation, to rescue him from unjust violence. And his Speech to Pilate, after his taking, plainly, justifies the lawfulness of such a forcible defence with Arms to preserve a man's life from unjust execution: john 18. 36 If my Kingdom were of this world, Then would my Servants fight (in my Defence and Rescue) that I should Not be delivered to the jews: but now my kingdom is not from hence. All which considered, clearly justifies, the Lawfulness of resisting the Kings, or higher Powers Officers, in cases of apparent unjust open violence or assaults; and withal answers one grand argument against resistance from our Saviour's present Example: namely, 
* See Doct. Fernes resolving of Conscience. An Appeal to thy Conscience, with others who muchrely on this ill foundation.  Christ himself made no resistance when he was unjustly apprehended; Ergo, Christians his Followers (Ergo, no Kings, no Magistrates too, as well as Christ the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, for they are Christians as well as subjects;) ought not to make any forcible resistance of open violence: Which argument is a mere inconsequent; because the reason why Christ resisted not these Pursuivants, and High Priests Officers, was only, that his Father's decree, and the Scriptures foretelling his Passion might be fulfilled, as himself resolves; not because he deemed resistance Unlawful, which he even then approved, though he practised it not, as these Texts do fully prove.  
Fourthly, 
4.  The lawfulness of a defensive War, against the invading Forces of a Sovereign, is warranted by the example of the City Abel; which stood out and defended itself against joab, David's General, and his Forces, when they besieged and battered it; till they had made their peace, with the head of Sheba who fled into it for shelter, 2 Sam. 20. 14. to 23. And by that of Ester, Ch. 8. 8. to 17. chap: 9 1. to 17. pertinent to this purpose. Where Haman having gotten the King's Decree, to be sent unto all Provinces for the utter extirpation of the whole Nation of the jews, the King after Hamans' Execution (through God's great mercy, and Mordecai's and Queen ester's diligence) to prevent this bloody massacre by their Enemies, granted to the jews in every City, by Letters under his Seal, To gather themselves together, and to stand for their lives, to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish all the power of the people and Province That would Assault them, both little ones and women, and to take the spoil of them for a prey; and that the jews should be ready against the day, to avenge themselves of their enemies. Hereupon when the day, that the King's Commandment and Decree (for their extirpation) drew near to be put in execution, in the day that the enemies of the jews hoped to have power over them; the jews gathered themselves together in their Cities, throughout all the Provinces of King Ahasuerus, to lay hand on such as sought their hurt; and no man could withstand them, for the fear of them fell upon all people: And all the Rulers of the Provinces, and the Lieutenants, Deputies, and Officers of the King helped the jews, because the fear of Mordecai fell upon them: So the jews smote all their enemies with the stroke of the Sword, and slaughter, and destruction, and did what they would unto those that hated them. In the Palace they slew eight hundred men, and haman's ten sons, on several days. And the other jews that were in the Provinces, gathered themselves together, and Stood for their Lives, and had rest from their enemies, and slew of their foes seventy and five thousand, but they laid not their hands on the prey. Lo here a Defensive war, justified, and granted lawful, by the Kings own Letters to the jews, against their enemies, who by former Charters from him, had Commission wholly to extirpate them. Neither had this licence of the King in point of Conscience, been lawful, had their defence and resistance of the King's former Commission been wholly unlawful. And the reason of the Kings grant to them, to resist and slay their Enemies, that would assault them; was not simply, because their resistance without it, and standing for their lives, had been unlawful, by reason of the King's first unjust Decree, which they ought not in Conscience to submit to, without repugnancy; But only to enable the jews, than Captives, and scattered abroad one from another in every Province, with more convenience, security, boldness, and courage now to join their forces together, to resist their malicious potent enemies; to daunt them the more thereby; Nature itself, yea, and all Laws in such a bloody national Butchery as this, without any just cause at all, both taught and enabled every one of the jews, to stand for his life, his Nations, Religions, preservation, even to the last drop of blood. Therefore the Letters of the King did not simply enable them to resist their enemies, which they might have done without them; but give them Authority to destroy, and slay the Wives and little children of their Enemies, and to take the spoil of them for a prey; which they refused to do, because they deemed it unjust, notwithstanding the King's permission and concession, which as to these particulars, was illegal, and more than he could justly grant. This general national resistance of Gods own people then of their assaulting cruel Enemies, even among Strangers, in the land of their Captivity under a foreign Enemy, with the former and other following precedents, will questionless more than conjecturally prove, if not infallibly resolve, The lawfulness of a necessary Defensive War, and opposition by free Subjects, against their King's assailing Forces which seeks their ruin, though armed with their King's Commission, and that without any Ordinance of Parliament authorising them to resist, much more then, when enabled to oppose them by Ordinances of both Houses; as the jews were to resist and slay their enemies by this King's Letters and Authority.  
Thirdly, 
3  That kind of resistance which hath no one Text, nor Example in Scripture to impeach its lawfulness, but many Texts and precedents to countenance it, must doubtless be lawful in point of Conscience. But the resisting of Kings invading pillaging, destructive Forces (who have nothing to plead; to justify all their Villainies but a void illegal Warrant) hath no one Text nor example in Scripture to impeach its lawfulness, for aught I can find; (and if there be any such, I wish the Opposites would object it, for Rom. 13. as I shall show hereafter, doth no ways contradict, but approve it:) But it hath many Texts and precedents to countenance it; as the premises and sequel attest: 
4.  Therefore it must doubtless beelawfull in point of Conscience.  
Fourthly, it is confessed by all men, (yea those who are most intoxicated with an 
o 〈◊〉 Luc. O●●inder. Ench●nd Contr c. 9 & 10. De Magistr. 〈◊〉.  anabaptistical spirit, condemning all kind of war, refusing to carry Arms to defend themselves against any Enemies, Thiefs, or Pirates) that it is lawful not only passively to resist their King's unlawful Commands, and invading Forces, but likewise by flight, hiding, or other policies, to evade and prevent their violence; which is warranted not only by 
p Exod. 2. 15. etc.  Moses, 
q 1 Sam. 19 to 31.  david's, and 
r 1 King. 19  Elijahs, their several flights from the violence of the Egyptians, Saul, and jezabel, who sought their lives; but likewise by 
s Mat. 2. 13. 14. 15.  joseph, Mary, and Christ himself, who fled into Egypt to escape the hands and but cherry of King Herod; by Christ's own direction to his Disciples Matth. 10. 23. But when they persecute you in this City, flee ye into another; and that Prediction of his Matth. 23. 34. Behold, I send unto you Prophets, and wise men, and Scribes, and some of them ye shall kill and crucify, and some of them shall you scourge in your Synagogues, and persecute them from City to City; which was really fulfilled. Acts 8. 3. 4. c. 9 1 2. c, 11. 19 c. 13. 50, 51. c. 14. 1, to 24, c. 17. 1. to 16. c. 22. 42. c. 26. 11. 12. c. 9 24, 25, 26. 2 Cor. 11. 32. 33. Rev. 12. 6. Of which read more in Tertullian his book De Fuga in persecutione. Hence than I argue thus. That unjust violence of Princes and their Armies, which Subjects with a safe conscience may decline and flee from, when as they want power, means, or convenience to resist it, they may no doubt lawfully resist even with force of Arms, when they have sufficient means and conveniences to resist, and cannot flee or submit thereto, without the public ruin: since the same justice and equity, which enables them by flight or stratagem to decline unjust assaults of a superior power, or its judgements, doth likewise enable them to escape and prevent it with resistance, when they cannot do it by flight or other policy: If then they may lawfully with a safe conscience hide, flee, or use lawful policies, to prevent the open injust violence of their kings and their Officers, when not guilty of any capital crime deserving censures; because by the very light of nature, and Law of Charity they are obliged to preserve themselves from unjust tyranny; and are no ways bound to subject themselves to the cruelty, the unjust assaults, or oppressions of others: then by the selfsame reason, they may lawfully with force of Arms defend themselves against such violent unjust attempts which they are no way obliged to submit unto, when as they cannot conveniently secure themselves and the public, but by such resistance, and should both betray their own, the public safety, and Religion (as the Subjects and Parliament should now do) in case they did not resist by force of Arms to the utmost of their power: and become 
t 1 Tim. 5. 8.  worse than. Infidels, who have even thus oft provided for their own and the republics security.  
Fiftly, God himself, the fountain oft justice, the 
u Zeph 3. 5. Esay 45. 21.  God of 
x 1 Cor. 14. 33 40.  Order, the 
y job 7. 20.  preserver of humane society who detests of all tyranny, 
z Psal. 5. 6. Psal. 11. 5.  cruelty, oppression, injustice, out of his 
a John 3. 16. 1 John 4 9  philanthropy (which brought the Son of his bosom from heaven to earth) would never certainly in point of policy or conscience prohibit that, which is the only probable means and apparent remedy, to prevent, suppress disorder, tyranny, cruelty, oppression, injustice, yea confusion in the world; and to preserve good order and humane society: a truth so apparent, that no rational man can contradict it. Therefore questionesse he never prohibited forcible necessary resistance of the highest powers and their instruments in cases of open unjust violence, and hostile invasion made upon their people to ruin them, or subvert their established government, Laws, Liberties, justice, Religion: There being no other probable ordinary means left to any Kingdom, Nation, People, to preserve their government, lives, Laws, Liberties, Religion, and to prevent, suppress, or redress tyranny, cruelty, disorder, confusion, yea utter ruin, when their Kings and Governors degenerate into Tyrants, invading them with open force, but only defensive Arms: prayers and tears alone, without military opposition by force of Arms, being no more able to defend a person, City or Kingdom against Oppressing Princes and their Armies, then against thiefs, Pirates or common enemies; whom they must and aught to resist, as well with Arms as Orisons, with Spears as well as Tears, 
b 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 Jews and Goths who would not fight upon the Sabbath, and so were slain by their enemies without resistance:) yea wilfully suffer the Commonweal to be subverted, Religion extirpated; Laws trampled under feet, their own posterities to be enslaved, ruined without any opposition, even in a moment. For were it utterly unlawful, and no less than Treason or Rebellion, in point of conscience for any subjects to take up Defensive Arms to resist the King's army, or forces, consisting for the most part of Papists, Delinquents, deboist Athesticall persons of broken fortunes, feared consciences and most irreligious lives, I appeal to every man's conscience, how soon these unresisted Instruments of cruelty would utterly extirpate our protestant Religion, and common faith, for which we are enjoined earnestly to contend and strive: Judas 3. Phil. 1. 27. 28. And shall we then yield it up and betray it to our adversaries without strife or resistance? how suddenly would they ruin our Parliament, Laws, Liberties; subvert all civil order, government; erect an arbitrary Lawless tyrannical Regency regulated by no jaws but will and Just? how soon would they murder, imprison, execute our Noblest Lords, Knights, Burgesses, best Ministers, and Commonwealthsmen for their fidelity to God, their King and Country? how many Noble families would they disinherit? how many wives, widows, Virgins would they force and ravish; what Cities, what Countries, would they not totally pillage, plunder, sack, ruin, consume with fire and sword? how soon would our whole Kingdom become an Acheldama, a wilderness, a desolation, and the surviving inhabitants either slaves or beasts, if not devils incarnate? Yea how speedy might any private Officers, Captains, Commanders, by colour of illegal Commissions and commands from the King, or of their Offices, and all the notorious rogues and thiefs of England, under colour of being listed in the King's Army, if the people might not in point of Law or Conscience resist them with Arms who came armed for to act their villainies, maliciously rob, spoil, plunder, murder all the King's liege people, without any remedy or prevention, and by this pretext, that they are the King's Soldiers, suddenly seize and gain all the arms, treasure, forts, ammunition, power of the Realm, into their possessions in a moment; and having thus strengthened themselves, and slain the King's faithful subjects, usurp the crown itself if they be ambitious, as many private Captains and Commanders have anciently slain divers Roman and Grecian Emperors, yea sundry Spanish, Gothish and Moorish Kings in Spain by such practices and aspired to their Crowns, (of which there are sundry such like precedents in most other Realms:) to prevent, redress, which several destructive mischiefs to People, Kingdom, Kings themselves, God himself hath left us no other certain, proper, sufficient remedy but a forcible resistance, which all Kingdoms, Nations throughout the world, have constantly used in such cases, as I shall manifest more largely in the Appendix. Therefore certainly it must needs be lawful, being Gods and Nature's special Ordinance to secure innocent persons, Cities, Nations, Kingdoms, Laws, Liberties, Lives, Estates, Religion, and mankind itself, against the hurtful Lusts of unnatural Tyrants, and their accursed instruments, against ambitious, treacherous, male-contented Spirits, maliciously bend against the public weal, and peace. There are two things only which usually restrain inferior persons from murdering, robbing, disseising, injuring one another; the one is, fear of punishment by the Magistrate; the other, fear and danger of being resisted, repulsed with shame and loss of limb or life by those they violently assault, injure; and were this once believed, received for Law or Divinity in the world, that it were unlawful to resist, repulse a thief, murderer, riotor, or disseisor coming in the King's name, long enjoy his life, goods, liberty, lands, but some or other would deprive him of them notwithstanding all restraints of Laws, of penalties, and maintain suits against him with his own estate violently seized on; the right of lawful defence, being every man's best security, to preserve his life, estate, in peace against the violence of another, whence the wisdom of the Common Law, makes every man's house his Castle, in the necessary defence whereof, and of his person, goods from the violence, rape of others, it gives him liberty to beat, repulse, yea kill injurious assailants: which right of defence if once denied, would open a wide gap to all wickedness, injustice, disorders whatsoever, and speedily bring in absolute confusion, subversion of all property, Law, Order. As for Emperors, Kings, great Officers, and other ungodly instruments, armed with Princes unjust commissions, who deem themselves above the reach of humane Laws, censures, and accountable for their unjust actions to none but God himself, there is no other known bar or obstacle to hinder or restrain their armed violence, Tyranny, oppressions, but only the fear of the oppressed assaulted subjects armed resistance; which if once denied to be lawful, all Royalties would soon be transformed into professed Tyrannies, all Kings & Magistrates into Tyrants, all Liberty into slavery, property into community, and every one would thereby be exposed as a voluntary prey to the arbitrary cruelty covetousness, avarice, lusts, of the greatest men. Therefore doubtless this armed resistance cannot but be lawful, necessary, just, in point of Law and Conscience, to eschew these general mischiefs.  
Sixtly, all will readily grant it lawful in case of Conscience, for subjects to resist a foreign enemy which invades them with force of Arms, though animated by the King himself to such invasion; and why so, but because they are their enemies, who would wrongfully deprive them of their native inheritance, Liberties, estates, and work them harm; upon which ground, we read in the 2 Kings 3. 21. That when the Moabites heard that the Kings of Israel, Judah and Edom came up to fight against them with a great Army, they gathered all that were able to put on armour, and upward to withstand them, and stood in the border; and when ever the Midianites, Philis●ines, Syrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Canaanites or other enemies came to assault the Jsraelites, they presently assembled together in Arms to encounter and repulse them, as the Histories of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, the Kings, Chronicles, and Nehemiah abundantly evidence, almost in every Chapter. If then Subjects may with a good Conscience resist forragin enemies on this ground alone; then likewise domestic foes and their Kings own Forces, when they become open enemies, to rob, kill, plunder, destroy them as inhumanely, as injuriously as the worst Foreign foes, there being the self same ground for the lawfulness of resistance of the one as the other, and if the balance incline to one side more than other, an intestine enemy being more unnatural, unjust, hurtful, dangerous, and transgressing more Laws of the Realm (which oblige not strangers) than a Foreigner, and a Civil war being far worse, and more destructive than a Foreign; the resistance of an homebred enemy, must be the more just and lawful of the two, even in point of Conscience.  
Seventhly, The very Law of God both alloweth and commands all men, to resist their spiritual enemies, with spiritual Arms: Jam 4. 7. Resist the Devil and he will flee from you, otherwise he would easily subdue and destroy us. 1 Pet. 5. 8. 9 Be sober and vigilant, because your adversary the devil as a rearing Lion walketh about seeking whom he may devour: whom resist steadfast in the faith, Ephes. 5. 10 to 19 Finally my brethren be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might: Put on the whole Armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle (or war) not against flesh and blood, but against Principalities, against powers, against the Rulers of the darkness of this world, against Spiritual wickedness (or wicked spirits) in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole Armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand: Stand therefore having your loins girded about with truth, etc. Above all taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked; And take the helms of Salvation, and the sword of the spirit, which is the Word of God: Praying always with all prayer and supplication. Hence Christians are termed, Soldiers of jesus Christ, and Christianity a warfare, against the world, the flesh, and Prince of the world, the Devil: 2 Tim. 2. 3, 4. 2 Cor. 10. 3. 1 Tim. 1. 18. jam. 41. 1 Pet. 2. 11. Rom. 7. 23. 2 Cor. 10. 4. 1 Cor. 9 7, I say 41. 2. Rev. 12. 7. 17. In which warfare, we must fight and resist even unto blood striving against sin, Heb. 12. 4. Using not only prayers and tears, but other spiritual weapons of war, mighty through God, able to cast down every high thing that exalteth itself, to bring into Captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ, and to revenge all disobedience, 2 Cor. 10. 4. 5. 6. If then we may and must manfully resist, and fight against our Spiritual enemies, though Principalities, Powers, Rulers, wicked spirits in high Places; and the 
c john 14. 30. c. 12. 31. c. 16. 11.  Prince of this world himself, the Devil, when they assault and seek to devour our souls: then by the selfsame reason, we lawfully with a safe conscience, may, yea ought to resist, repulse our corporal enemies when they maliciously, unjustly, forcibly assault us, against all rules of Law, of Conscience, to murder, enslave, destroy our bodies, Souls, Religion, the Republic, which must be dearest to us, though they be Principalities, Powers, Rulers, wicked Spirits in high Places; yea Princes of this world; with all their under Officers and Instruments of cruelty, not only with prayers and tears, but corporal Arms and force, because they unnaturally, tyrannically, seek the destruction of our bodies, estates, Liberties, Republic, Religion, there being no inhibition in Scripture, not to resist the one or other, but infinite Texts authorising men, not only to resist, but war against, yea slay their malicious open enemies, until they be subdued 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 do the Texts of Mat. 5 39 Luk. 6. 29. But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek●, turn to him the other also, and him that taketh away thy cloak, forbid not to take thy c●ate also; prohibit all actual resistance of public violence offered by enemies to our persons, goods, or lawful defensive wars; which precept (as is clear by the context, and resolved by 
d Gratian. Caus. 23. Qu. 1.  Augustine, Gratian, 
e Sum Theolog. Pars. 3 qu. 47. m. 3. Ofiander E●● ibid. c. 9 〈…〉  Alensis, and f others) extends only to some private injuries and revenges, and to the inward patient preparation of the mind to suffer two injuries, rather then maliciously to revenge a single one, especially in cases where we want ability to resist; not to an actual bearing of all gross outward injuries to our persons or estates, without resistance: which precept being given generally to all Christians; to Kings and Magistrates as well as Subjects, if it be strictly urged, prohibits Kings and Magistrates to resist the violence and injuries of the people, as much as the people, not to repulse the Arms violence and oppressions of their Princes and Governors: and that Text of james 5. 6. Ye have condemned and killed the just, and he doth not resist you, (which some think is meant of Christ alone) proves only, that some just men, and many Martyrs have been condemned and killed without resistance, as our Saviour was; not that it is unlawful to resist an open enemy, thief or murderer, who comes to kill, rob, or plunder us against Law and Conscience. I read of 
f 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 martyrdom; yet the people lawfully rescued innocent jonathan, from that unjust death which his Father King Saul twice vowed he should undergo: 
g 1 Sam. 14. 15. 38. to 46.  Some men's patient suffering death and injuries without resistance, is no better an argument, that all therefore must so suffer without opposition, then that all men ought to yield their purses up to highway thiefs, or their persons, goods, ships, to Turks and Pirates, without fight or resistance, because some, yea many have shamefully done it for want of courage when they were able to resist, and so have deservedly lost their purses, ships, goods, liberties, and become Turkish Galleyslaves, to the ruin of their estates, bodies, souls, which miseries by a manful just defence, they might have easily prevented. All which considered; I see no ground in Scripture, nor reason, but that temporal enemies of all kinds which wrongfully invade our persons or estates by open force of Arms in a warlike manner, may be resisted with temporal weapons, as well as spiritual enemies with spiritual Arms.  
Eighthly, 
8.  That which all Nations in all ages by the very light of nature have constantly practised, as just and lawful, must doubtless 
h Ro●●. 2. 15. 15.  be lawful in point of conscience, if there be no Law of God to the contrary. But self-defence against invading Tyrants and their instruments hath by the very light of Nature been constantly practised, by all Nations in all ages, as just and lawful, which the premises, the Appendix, the Histories of all age's evidence; their being never any one Nation or Kingdom for aught I find, that ever yet reputed it a thing unlawful in point of Conscience; to resist the open malicious destructive tyranny, violence, hostility of their unnatural Princes, or that desisted from any such resistance, giving themselves up willingly to their outrageous lusts and butcheries, without any opposition (though some private men and Martyrs have sometimes done it, upon particular reasons, as to avoid the scandal of Religion; to bear witness to the truth, for the confirmation and conversion of others; or for want of power or opportunity to resist; or to avoid a general massacre of their fellow Christians, or because they were only a few private men; and their religion directly opposite to the Laws and government under which they lived, or the like, not because they judged all resistance simply unlawful, as 
i Dr. Fernes resolving of Conscience; An appeal to thy Conscience.  blind Doctor's falsey inform us, which I shall prove hereafter;) and there is no Law of God at all to prohibit such resistance: therefore doubtless it must be lawful, even in point of conscience.  
Ninthly, 
9  that which is directly opposite to what is absolutely illegal, and unjust in point of conscience, and the chief law full obstacle and remedy, to prevent or redress it, must certainly be just, be lawful in the court of Conscience, since that which is directly opposite to that which is simply ill, and unjust, must necessarily be good and just. But necessary just defence by force of Arms, is directly opposite to that open Armed violence, and tyranny which is absolutely illegal and unjust in point of Conscience, and the chief lawful remedy and obstacle to prevent or redress it: as reason, experience and the premises evidence. Therefore it must necessarily be just and lawful, even in the Court of Conscience.  
Tenthly, 
10.  That resistance which doth neither oppose the King's royal person, nor lawful Authority; must certainly be lawful in point of conscience: But the resistance of the Kings Forces not accompanied with his person, in the execution of his unjust commands; is neither a resistance of his Royal person, (for that is absent, and his Cavaliers I hope are no Kings, nor yet invested with the privileges of Kings; nor yet of his lawful Authority;) his illegal Commissions and Commands, being mere nullities in Law, transferring no particle of his just Authority to those who execute them. Therefore it must certainly be lawful in point of conscience.  
Eleventhly, 
11.  That resistance which is the only remedy to keep not only Kings themselves, but every one of their Officers and Soldiers from being absolute Tyrants, Monarches; and the denial whereof, equalizeth every soldier, and particular Officer to Kings, yea God himself (whose prerogative only it is to have an 
* Rom. 9 19 20.  absolute unresistable will;) must doubtless be lawful in the Court of Conscience. But this necessary defensive resistance now used by the Parliament and Subjects, in such: For if they may not resist any of the King's Officers or Soldiers in their plunderings, rapines, fierings, sackings of Towns, beating, wounding, murdering the King's liege people and the like; will not every common Soldier and Officers be an absolute Tyrant, equal in Monarchy to the great Turk himself, and paramount the King, who hath no absolute irresistible Sovereignty in these particulars? Either therefore this resistance must be granted, not only as lawful, but simply necessary, else every officer and common Soldier will be more than an absolute King and Monarch, every subject worse than a Turkish slave, and exposed to as many uncontrollable Sovereigns, as there are Soldiers in the King's Army, be their conditions never so vile, their quality never so mean, and the greatest Peers on the Parliaments party, must be irresistably subject to these new absolute Sovereign's lusts and wills.  
Twelfthly, 
12.  if all these will not yet satisfy Conscience in the Lawfulness the justness of the Parliaments and peoples present forcible resistance of the King's Captains and Forces, though Armed with an illegal Commission (which makes nothing at all in the case, because void in Law) there is this one Argument yet remaining which will satisfy the most scrupulous, malignant, opposite Conscience: That necessary forcible resistance which is Authorised, and Commanded by the Supremest lawful power and highest Sovereign Authority in the Realm, must infallibly be just and lawful, even in point of Conscience, by the express Resolution of Rom. 13. and our opposites own confession; who have 
k See Doctor Ferne; Appeal to thy Conscience; The Grand Rebellion; The Necessity of Christian Subjection, and others.  no other Argument to prove the Offensive war on the King's part Lawful, but because it is commanded; and the Parliaments and Subjects Defensive Arms Unlawful, but because prohibited by the King, whom they salsely affirm?, to be the highest Sovereign power in the Kingdom, above the Parliament and whole Realm collectively considered. But this resistance of the King's Popish malignant, invading Forces; is Authorized and Commanded by the express Votes and Ordinances of both Houses of Parliament, which I have already undeniably manifested, to be the Supremest Lawful Power, and Soveraignest Authority in the Realm, Paramount the King himself, who is but the Parliaments and Kingdoms Public Royal Servant for their good: Therefore his Resistance must infallibly be just and Lawful, even in Point of Conscience.  
Thus much for the Lawfulness in Court of Conscience of resisting the Kings unjustly assaulting Forces, armed with his Commission: I now proceed to the justness of opposing them by way of forcible resistance when accompanied with his personal presence.  
That the King's Army of Papists and Malignants, invading the Parliaments or Subjects persons, goods, Laws, Liberties, Religion, may even in Conscience be justly resisted with force, though accompanied with his person, seems most apparently clear to me, not only by the preceding Reasons, but also by many express Authorities recorded, and approved in Scripture, not commonly taken notice of: as,  
First, 
1.  By the ancientest precedent of a defensive war that we read of in the world, Gen. 14. 1. to 24. where the five Kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Zoar, rebelling against Chedolaomer King of Nations, after they had served him twelve years, defended themselves by arms and battle against his assaults, and the Kings joined with him: who discomfiting these five Kings, pillaging Sodom and Gomorrah, and taking Lot, and his goods along with them as a p●e●: hereupon Abraham himself, the Father of the faithful, in defence of his Nephew Lot, to rescue him and his substance from the enemy, taking with him 318. trained men of his own family, pursued Chedorlaomer, and the Kings with him, to Dan, assaulted them in the night, smote and pursued them unto Hoba, regained all the goods and prisoners with his Nephew Lot, and restored both goods and persons freely to the King of Sodom, thereby justifying his and his people's forcible defence, against their invading enemies, in the behalf of his captivated plundered Nephew and Neighbours.  
Secondly, 
2.  by the Example of the Israelities, who were not only King Pharaoh his Subjects but Bondmen too, as is evident by Exod, ch. 1. to 12. Deut. 6. 21. c. 7. 8. c. 15. 15. c. 16. 12. c. 24 18. 22. Ezra. 9 9 Now Moses and Aaron being sent by God to deliveer them from their Egyptian bondage, after 430. years' captivity, under colour of demanding but three day's liberty to go into the wilderness to serve the Lord, and Pharaoh, (notwithstanding all God's Miracles and Plagues,) refusing still to let them depart, till enforced to it by the slaughter of the Egyptians first borne; as soon as the Israelites were marching away, Pharaoh and the Egyptians, repenting of their departure, pursued them with their Chariots and Horses, and a great army even to the red Sea, to reduce them; here upon the Israelites being astonished and murmuring against Moses, giving themselves all for dead men; Moses said unto the people fear ye not, stand still, and see the Salvation of the Lord, which he will show to you this day: for the Egyptians whom you have seen to day, ye shall see them again no more for ever, the Lord shall fight for you, etc. And hereupon God himself discomfited routed, and drowned them all in the red Sea: I would demand in this case, whether the Isralites might not here lawfully (for their own redemption from unjust bondage) have fought against and resisted their Lord, King Pharaoh, and his invading Host, accompanied with his presence, had they had power and hearts to do it, as well as God himself, who fought against and destroyed them on their behalf; If so, (as all men I think must grant, unless they will censure God himself) than a defensive war in respect of life and liberty only, is just and Lawful even in conscience, by this most memorable story.  
Thirdly, 
3.  by that example recorded judges 3. 8. 9 10. where God growing angry with the Israelites for their Apostasy and Idolatry, sold them (here was a divine title) into the hands of Cushan-Rishathaim King of Mesopotamia, and the children of Israel served him 8. years. Here was a lawful title by conquest and 8 years' submission seconding it. But when the children of Israel cried unto the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer to them even Othniel, the son of Kenaz: and the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and he went out to war, and the Lord delivered Cushan-rishatiam King of Mesopotamia into his hands, and his hand prevailed against him, so the land had rest 40. years. Lo here a just defensive war approved and raised up by God and his Spirit (in an ordinary manner only, as I take it, by encouraging the Instruments) wherein a conquering King, for Redemption former liberties, is not only resisted but conquered, taken prisoner, and his former dominion abrogated, by those that served him, as conquered subjects.  
Fourthly, 
4.  by the example of Ehud, and the Israelites, judges chap. 3. 11. to 31 where we find, God himself strengthening Eglon King of Moab against the Israelites for their sins, who thereupon gathering an Army smote Israel, possessed their Cities, so as the Israelites served this King 18. years. Here was a title by conquest, approved by God, submitted to by the Israelites: yet after all this, when the children of Israel cried unto the Lord, he raised them up a deliverer, namely Ehud, who stabbing Eglonn the King in the belly, under pretext of private conference with him, and escaping; he thereupon blew the trumpet, commanded the Israelites to follow him to the war, slew ten thousand valiant men of Moah, which he subdued, and procured rest to his Country 40. years. God, his Spirit, Word, approving this his action.  
Fifthly, 
5.  by the example of Barack and Deborah, judge's ch. 4. and 5. Where God selling the children of Israel for their sins into the hand of jabin King of Cannon; and his Captain Sisera, for 20. years' space, during which he mightily oppressed them, hereupon Barack, at the instigation of the Prophetess Deborah, by the command of the Lord God of Israel, gathered an Army of ten thousand men; which Sisera, and the King of Canaan hearing of; assembled all their Chariots and Army together, at the River of Kishon, where the Lord discomfited Sisera and all his Host, with the edge of the sword before Barack his Army, and subdued jabin the King of Canaan, before the children of Israel: which war is by a special Song of Deborah and Barack highly extolled, and God in it, as most just and honourable: and this curse denounced against those that refused to assist in it, judges 4. 23. Curse ye Meroz (saith the Angel of the Lord) curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof, because they come not out to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord, against the mighty; with this corollary; so that thine enemy's parish O Lord: but let them that love thee be as the sun when it goeth forth in his might. What more can conscience desire to justify the lawfulness of a just defensive war?  
Sixthly, 
6.  by the Example of Gideon and the Israelites, judges c. 6. Who being delivered by God into the hands of the Prince of Midian for seven years, Gideon by special encouragement and direction from God himself, with a poor despicable Army of 300. men, defeated the great Host of the Midianites, and took and slew their Princes. By these 4 last pregnant precedents, it is most evident, that a foreign King who hath gained a Title only by conquest (though with divine concurrence, by way of punishment for that people's sin) may lawfully be resisted, repulsed, even after some years forced subjection and submission to him, by the people conquered, to regain their former liberties.  
Seventhly, 
7.  by the precedent of Abimelech King of Shechem, who being elected King by the voluntary assents of the people, God afterwards sending an evil spirit of division between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; thereupon they revolted from him, and choosing Gael for their Captain, fortified the City against him; and when Abimelech came with an Army to take in the Town, they in their defence, went forth and fought with him; resisted his siege; and they of the Tower of Shechem standing upon their guard refused to surrender it after the Town was surprised, and so were burnt. After which coming too near the walls, at the Tower of Thebez assaulted by Abimelech he had his brains and head so bruised with the piece of a millstone cast down upon him by a woman, that he called hastily to his Armour-bearer, and said unto him, draw thy sword and slay me, that men say not of me; a woman slew him: whereupon he thrust him through, that he died: and so every man departed to his place. Thus God rendered the wickedness of Abimelech, and all the evil of the men of Shechem upon their own heads, judges 9 So the Text.  
Eightly, 
8.  by the example of jepthah, who after that God had sold the Israelites for their Idolatry into the hands of the children of Ammon 18. years' space, jepthah being made head and Captain by the Elders and people of Gilead, first argued the case with the King of Ammon touching the unjustness of his war upon them, desiring God to be judge between them; and then by God's assistance, smote and subdued the Ammonites and their Cities, Judg. c. 11. And so cast off their yoke.  
Ninthly, 
9  By the practice of Samson, who after God had delivered the Isra●lities into the hands of the Philistimes who ruled over them forty years' space, did by God's 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, judg. 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 pattern of the inconstancy and invalidity of Kings solemnest oaths and Protestations:) who contrary to many solemn vows and feighned reconciliations, sought unjustly to deprive him of his life; thereupon David retired from the Court, entertained a guard of four hundred men, and became a Captain over them, 1 Sam. 22. 2. After which Abiather escaping to him from Nob when the Priests there were slain by Doeg, upon Saules command, for David's sake, David used these words to him. Abide thou with me, fear not, for ●e that seeketh thy life seeketh my life, but with me thou shalt be in safeguard. 1 Sam. 22. 23. Soon after the Philistimes beseiging Keilah, David by God's encouragement, smote them and saved Keilah; intending there to secure himself and his men: which Saul hearing of, said; God hath delivered him into my hands; for he is shut in by entering into a Town which hath gates and bars, whereupon he called all the people together to beseige David and his men: (which he needed not do, did he or any else believe, that they would not, ought not to have made any forcible resistance:) David informed hereof; enquired seriously of God, whether Saul would certainly come down? and demanded twice of him: will the men of Keila deliver me and my men up into his hand? And the Lord said, they will deliver thee up. Had not David and his men resolved to fortify and defend themselves there, if the men of Keilah would have been faithful to them, and believed they might have resisted Saul with his Forces, certainly he would never have presumed to ask such a question twice together of God himself, to receive his resolution therein, neither would God have vouchased an answer thereto: but his double inquiry, and God's resolution, infallibly demonstrate his intention to resist, and the lawfulness of his defensive resistance, would the Keilites have adhered to him. This the very next words fully clear, 1 Sam. 23. 13. Then David and his men, about six hundred arose, and departed out of Keilah, and went wheresoever they could go, and it was told Saul, the David was escaped from Keilah: God's prediction of the Keilites treachery was the only cause of their departure thence, where they had resolved to defend themselves, of which hope being disappointed beyond expectation, they want whither soever they could go. After which David and his men being but few in number, not able in humane probability, without tempting God, to encounter Saul's great Forces, retired themselves into woods, mountains, rocks, strong holds, wildernesses; where Saul pursuing them, they still declined him: but had he and his army ever assaulted them, no doubt they would and might lawfully have defended themselves, else why did they join themselves in a body? why retire to strong holds, and places of advantage? why 
* 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 himself, say, even when he spared his life when he was a sleep, 1 Sam. 26. 10. As the Lord liveth, the Lord shall smite him, or his day shall come to die, or he shall descend into battle and perish? but that if he had given him battle, he might have defended himself against him, though Saul should casually or wilfully perish in the fight? And why was David so importunate to go up against him with King Achish to the battle wherein he perished, 1 Sam. 29. were resistance of him, in case he assaulted him, and his Forces utterly unlawful? This precedent of David then, if rightly weighed, is very punctual to prove the justness of a defensive war, (of which more anon) and no evidence at all against it.  
Eleventhly, 
11.  by the practice of the 10 Tribes: who after their revolt from Rehoboam for giving them an harsh indiscreet answer to their just demands, setting up another King and Kingdom, even by divine approbation; Rehoboam thereupon raising a great Army to fight against and reduce them to his obdience; God himself by Semaiah the Prophet, sent this express inhibition to Rehoboam and his Army: Thus saith the Lord, ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren return every man to his house, FOR THIS IS DONE OF ME: Whereupon the obeyed the Word of the Lord and returned: 1 Kings 12. 2 Chron. c. 10. and 11. After which long wars continued between these Kingdoms by reason of this revolt, wherein the ten Tribes and Kings of Israel still defended themselves with open force, and that justly, as the Scripture intimates 2 Chron. 12. 14 15. though that jeroboam and the Israelites falling to Idolaty, were afterwards (for their Idolatry, not revolt) defeated by Abiah and the men of judah, who relied upon God, 2 Chron. 13.  
Twelfthly, 
12.  by the example of the King of Moab and his people, who Rebelling against jehoram King of Israel, and refusing to pay the annual Tribute of Lambs and Rams, formerly rendered to him; hereupon jehoram, jehoshaphat, and the King of Edom raising a great Army to invade them, the Moalites hearing of it, gathered all that were able to put on Armour, and upward, and stood in the border to resist them. 2 King. 3 4 to 27. And by the practice of the Ed●mites, who revolting from under the hand of judah, made a King over themselves: Whereupon joram King of judah going up with his Forces against them to Zair, they encompassed him, in their own defence; and though they fled into their Tents, yet they revolted from judah till this day, and Libnah too, 2 Kings 8. 20 21. 22.  
Thirteenthly, 
13.  by the example of Samaria, which held out 3. years' siege against Shalmazezer King of Assyria, notwithstanding their King Hoshea had by force submitted himself and his Kingdom to him, and became his servant. 2 Kings 17. 3. to 10. c. 18. 9 10.  
Fourteen, 
14.  by the practice 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 Captains coming up against him with great Forces, and invading his Country, he not only fortified his Cities, and encouraged his people manfully to withstand them to the utter most, but actually resisted the Assyrians even by divine direction and encouragement; and upon his prayer, God himself by his Angel for his and Jerusalem's preservation, miraculously slew in the Camp of the King of Assria in one night, an hundred fourscore and five thousand mighty men of valour, Captains and Leaders; so as he returned with shame of face to his own Land, 2 King. c. 18. and 19 2 Chron. c. 32. I say c. 36. and ●7. An Example doubtless lawful beyond exception, ratified by God himself and his Angel too.  
Fifteenthly, 
15.  by the examples of King jehoiakim, 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, sieges though with ill success, by reason of their gross Idolatries and other sins. (not of this their revolt and defence to regain their freedoms 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. jer. c. 37. & 38 & 39  
Finally, by the History of the Maccabees and whole state of the jews defensive wars under them, which though but Apocryphal in regard of the compiler, yet no doubt they had a divine Spirit concurring with them in respect of the managing and Actors in them. I shall give you the sum thereof, very succinctly. Antio●us Epiphanes conquering jerusalem, spoiled it and the Temple, set up Heathenish customs and Idolatry in it, subverted Gods worship destroyed the Books of God's Law, forced the people to forsake God, to sacrifice to Idols slew and persecuted all that opposed, and exercised all manner of Tyranny against them. Hereupon Mattathias a Priest and his Sons, moved with a godly zeal, refusing to obey the King's Command in falling away from the Religion of his Fathers, slew a jew that sacrificed to an Idol in his presence, together with the King's Commissary, who compelled men to Sacrifice, and pulled down their Idolatrous Altar; which done they fled into the mountains, whither all the well-affected jews repaired to them. Whereupon the King's Forces hearing the premises pursued them, and warred against them on the Sabbath day; whereupon they out of an overnice superstition 
o 1 Mac. 2, 32. to 42.  lest they should profane the Sabbath by fight on it when assaulted, answered them not, neither cast a stone at them, nor stopped the places where they were hid, but said, let us die all in our innocence; heaven and earth shall testify for us, that your put us to death wrongfully, whereupon they slew both them, their wives, and children, without resistance, to the number of a thousand persons. Which Mattathias and the rest of their friends hearing of, mourned for them right sore, and said one to another (mark their speech) if we all do as our brethren have done, and fight not for our lives, and Laws against the Heathen, they will now quickly root us out of the earth; therefore they decreed, saying; whosoever shall come to make battle with us on the Sabbath day, we will fight against him, neither will we do all as our brethren, that were murdered in their secret places. Whereupon they presently gathered and united their Forces, assaulted their enemies, recovered their Cities, Laws, Liberties; defended themselves manfully, and fought many battles with good success against the several kings who invaded and laid claim to their Country, as you may read at large in the books of Maccabees. All these examples, (most of them managed by the most pious, religious persons of those days, prescribed and assisted by God himself, whose Spirit specially encouraged, strengthened the hands and Spirits of the undertakers of them (as 
p Enchirid. Controvers. c. 9 De Magistrate. Polit.  Osiander well observes,) and therefore cannot be condemned as unjust, without blasphemy and impiety:) in my opinion are a most clear demonstration of the lawfulness of a defensive war (in point of Divinity and Conscience) against Kings and their Armies who wrongfully invade or assault their Subjects, though themselves be personally present in their armies, to countenance their unlawful wars; and likewise evidence, that a Royal title gotten forcibly by conquest only, though continued sundry years, is not so valid in point of conscience, but that it may be safely questioned, yea rejected; there being no true lawful Title of Sovereignty over any people, but that which originally depends upon their own free election, and unconstrained subjection simply considered, or which is subsequently seconded therewith after a possession got by force or conquest.  
Now that the kings personal presence cannot justify the unjust actions, or protect the persons of those that assist him in any unlawful action contrary to the Laws of God, or the Realm, is a truth so evident, that it needs no proof, it being no part of the kings Royal prerogative or Office, but diametrally repugnant to it, either to do injury himself, or to authorise, 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 far degenerate and dishonour himself, as personally to accompany a pack of thiefs who should rob his subjects on the high way, break up their houses in the night, or practise piracy on the Sea, or commit Rapes or murders on his people every where; I think no man so void of Reason, Law, Conscience, but would readily grant, that the Subjects in all these cases might lawfully defend themselves by force against these Robbers, Thiefs, Murderers, notwithstanding the King's presence or association with them, whose personal Prerogatives, and immunity from assaults or violence being incommunicable, underivable to any other, and peculiar to himself alone, he can transfere no such protection to others who accompany him in their injurious practices; and that these Acts of theirs are direct felony and murder, for which they might be justly apprehended, condemned, executed, though thus countenanced by the Kings own presence. And if this be truth (as our Law-bookes resolve, and the Scripture to in places forecited) the king's presence can no more deprive the subjects of their necessary just defence against his Popish Forces, assaults, nor justify their proceedings, or the present unjust offensive war, then in the former cases, there being the selfsame reason in both; wars being in truth, but greater and more detestable Murders, and Robberies, when they are unjust, as 
q Epist. l. 2. Ep. 2. Donar●  Cyprian, 
r De Ciu. Dei. l. 4. c. 4.  Augustine, with 
s O siander; Enchrid. Cont c. 9 De Polit. Magist-au 3. p. 203. Abber. Gentillun de jure Bellit. l. 1. c. 5. Hugo Grotius, de jure Belli l. 2. c. 1 §. 2.  others rightly define.  
Thirdly, personal unjust assaults and violence even of Kings themselves may in some cases lawfully be resisted by subjects; This Doctor Ferne himself acknowledgeth, Sect. 2. p. 9 Personal defence is lawful against the sudden (much more than against the premeditated) and illegal assaults of such Messengers of the King; yea, OF THE PRINCE HIMSELF THUS far, to ward his blows, to hold his hands and the like: not to endanger his person, not to return blows; no: for though it be natural to defend a man's self, yet the whole commonwealth is concerned in his person: the king therefore himself, (much more in his Cavaliers) may thus far at least safely be resisted in point of conscience. And that he may be so indeed is manifest by two pregant Scripture examples, The first is that of King Saul, 1 Sam 14. 38. to 46. where jonathan and his Armour-bearer, routing the Philistimes whole Army, violated his Father Saul's command, of which he was wholly ignorant in taking a little honey one the end of his stick in the pursuit; hereupon king Saul, most rashly and unjustly vowed twice one after another, to put him to death: whereupon the people much discontented with this injustice, were so far from submitting to the King's pleasure in it, that they presently said to the king: shall Jonathan die, who hath wrought so great Salvation in Israel? God forbid: As the Lord liveth there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground, So the people, RESCVED JONATHAN that he died not; though he were not only King Saul's Subject, but Son too. Indeed it appears not in the Text, that Saul offered any violence to Jonathan's person, or the people to Saul's: and it may be the people's peremptory vow and unanimous resolution to defend Jonathan, from this unjust sentence of death against him, made Saul desist from his vowed bloody intendment: but the word rescued, with other circumstances in the story, seem to intimate, that jonathan was in hold to be put to death, and that the people forcibly rescued him, out of the executioners hands. However, certainly their vow and speeches declare, that if Saul himself or any other by his commanded had assaulted jonathan to take away his life, they 
* Josephas Antiq. Judae l. 4. c. 8, p. 104.  would have forcibly resisted them and preserved his life, though with loss of their own, believing they might lawfully do it, else they would not have made this resolute vow; nor could they have performed it, had Saul wilfully proceeded, but by a forcible rescue and resistance of his personal violence. The other is that of king Vzziah, 2 Chron. 27. 16. to 22. who presumptuously going into the Temple against God's Law, to burn incense on the Altar, Azariah the high Priest, and with him fourscore Priests of the Lord, that were valiant men went in after him, and WITHSTOOD (or resisted) Vzziah the king; and said unto him; It appertaineth not unto thee Vzziah to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the Priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: 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 burn incense, and whiles he was wroth with the Priests, the Leprosy rose up in his forehead: And Azariah, and all the Priests looked upon him, and behold he was Leprous in his forehead: AND THEY THRUST HIM OUT FROM THENCE; yea himself hasted also to go out, because the Lord had smitten him. If then these Priests thus actually resisted King Vzziah in this sinful Act, thrusting him perforce out of the Temple when he would but offer incense; much more might they, would they have done it, had he violently assaulted their persons. If any king shall unjustly assault the persons of any private Subjects, men or women, to violate their lives or chastities (over which they have no power) I make no doubt, that they may and aught to be resisted, repulsed, even in point of conscience, but not slain; though many kings have lost their lives, upon such occasions: as 
s Philip. de Melanct, Chr. l. 4. Dr Beards Theatre of God's judgement l. 2. c. 29. p. 400.  Rodoaldus the 8. king of Lombary Anno 659. being taken in the very act of adultery by the adulteresses husband, was slain by him without delay; and how kings attempting to murder private Subjects unjustly, have themselves been sometimes wounded, and casually slain, is so rise in stories, that I shall forbear examples: concluding this with the words of 
t Num. 16. Rom. 13. 1. to 6. 1 Pet. 2. 13. 14.  josephus, who expressly writes. That the King of the Israelites (by God's express Law, Deut. 17.) was to do nothing without the consent of the high Priest and Senate, nor to multiply money and horses over much, which might easily make him a contemner of the Laws; and if he addicted himself to these things more than was fitting. HE WAS TO BE RESISTED, lest he became more powerful than was expedient for their affairs.  
To these Authorities, I shall only subjoin these 5. undeniable arguments to justify Subjects necessary defensive wars, to be lawful in point of conscience against the persons and Forces of their injuriously invading Sovereigns.  
First, 
1.  it is granted by all as a truth irrefragable, that kings by Force of Arms may justly with safe conscience, resist, repulse, suppress the unlawful warlike invasive assaults, the Rebellious armed Insurrections of their Subjects, upon these two grounds, because they are 
u Esay. 14. 19 to 23. Ezech. 44. 15. 16. 17. Zech. 11. 4. 5. ● King. 25. 2 King. 24. 4.  unlawful by the Edicts of God and man; and because kings in such case, have no other means left to preserve their Royal persons, and just authority against offensive armed Rebellions, but offensive arms: Therefore Subjects by the selfsame grounds, may justly with safe consciences resist, repulse, suppress the unjust assailing military Forces of their kings in the case fore-stated, though the king himself be personally present and assistant, because 
* Estates upon Credit, 1: Sect. 378. 379. 2 Part. 1. p. 51. to 74.  such a war is unlawful by the resolution of God and men, and against the oath, the duty of kings: and because the subjects in such cases have no other means left to preserve their persons, lives, liberties, estates, religion, established government from certain ruin, but defensive Arms. There is the self same reason in both cases, being relatives, therefore the selfsame Law and Conscience in both.  
Secondly, 
2.  It must be admitted without debate; that this office of highest and greatest trust, hath a condition in Law annexed to it (by Littleton's own resolution) to wit, that the King shall well and truly preserve the Realm, and do that which to such Office belongeth; which condition our king by an express oath to all his people solemnly taken at their Coronation, with other Articles expressed in their oath (formerly recited) is really bound both in Law and Conscience exactly to perform, being admitted and elected king by the people's suffrages upon solemn promise, 
a Part. 1. p. 51.  to observe the same condition to the uttermost of his power, 
b De Princip. l. 1. 2. 3. 6.  as I have a 
c Praefat, ad Ruh. de collationibus, p. 583 584.  elsewhere cleared. Now it is a clear case resolved by 
f 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 Civil Lawyers, and Canonists quoted by hi●; agreed by 
d De jure Belli. l. 2. c. 12, 13. l. 3 c. 14, 15, 16.  Albericus Gentiles and Hugo Grotius, 
e De jure belli & Pacis l. 2. c. 11. 12, 13, 24.  who both largely dispute it; That Kings as well as Subjects are really bound to perform their Covenants, Contracts. Conditions, especially those they make to all their Subjects, and ratify with an Oath; since God himself who is most absolute, is yet mostf firmly obliged by his Oaths and Covenants made to his despicable vile ereatures, sinful men; and never violates them in the least degree. If then these conditions and Oaths be firm and obligatory to our kings; if they will obstinately break them, by violating their Subjects Laws, Liberties, Properties, and making actual war upon them; the condition and Oath too would be merely void, ridiculous, absurd, an high taking of the Name of God in vain, yea a plain delusion of the people, if the whole State or people in their own defence might not justly take up Arms, to resist their kings and their malignant Forces in these perfidious violations of trust, conditions, oaths; and force them to make good their oath and covenants, when no other means will induce them to it. Even as the Subjects oath of homage and allegiance 
g Grotius De jure Belli l. 2. c. 14. Sect. 3.  would be merely frivolous, if kings had no means nor coercive power to cause them to observe these oaths, when they are apparently broken: and many whole kingdoms had been much over seen in point of Policy, or prudence, in prescribing such conditions and oaths unto their kings, had they reserved no lawful power at all which they might lawfully exercise in point of conscience, to see them really performed, and duly redressed, when notoriously transgressed, through wilfulness, negligence, or ill pernicious advice.  
Thirdly, 
3.  when any common or public trust is committed to three or more, though of subordinate and different quality, if the trust be either violated or betrayed, the inferior trusties, may and aught in point of Conscience to resist the other. For instance; if the custody of a City or Castle be committed to a Captain, Lieutenant, and common Soldiers: or of a ship to the Master, Captain, and ordinary Mariners: If the Captain or Master will betray the City, Castle, or ship to the enemy or Pirates, or dismantle the City walls and fortifications to expose it unto danger, or will wilfully run the ship against a rock to split, wreck it, and endanger all their lives, freedoms, contrary to the trust reposed in them; or fire or blow up the City, Fort, ship: not only the Lieutenant, Master's Mate, and other inferior Officers, though subject to their commands, but even the Common Soldiers and Mariners may withstand and forcibly resist them, and are bound in Conscience so to do, because else they should betray their trust, and destroy the City, Fort, ship, and themselves too, which they are bound by duty and compact to preserve. This case of Law and conscience is so clear, so common in daily experience that no man doubts it: The care and safety of our Realm by the original politic constitution of it, always hath been and now is, committed jointly to the king, the Lords, and Commons in Parliament, by the unanimous consent of the whole kingdom. The king the supreme member of it, contrary to the trust and duty reposed in him, through the advice of evil Councillors wilfully betrays the trust and safety of this great City and ship of the Republic; invades the inferior Commanders, Soldiers, Citizens, with an Army: assaults, wounds, slays, spoils, plunders, sacks, imprisons his fellow trusties, Soldiers, Mariners, Citizens, undermines the walls, fires the City, ship, delivers it up to thiefs, Pirates, murderers, as a common prey, and wilfully runs this ship upon a rock of ruin. If the Lords and Commons jointly entrusted with him, should not in this case by force of Arms resist him, and his unnatural instruments, (there being no other means else of safety left them) they should sinfully and wilfully betray their trust, and be so far from keeping a good Christian Conscience in not resisting by force, that they should highly sin against Conscience, against their trust and duty, against their natural Country, yea and their very Allegiance to the king himself, by encouraging him in, and consenting unto these proceedings, which would make him not to be a king, but Tyrant, and destroy him as a king, in the spoil and ruin of his Kingdom, thereby endangered to be consumed) and tempt God himself: as Pope Nicholas, and 
* 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 abstain from wars, but if inevitable necessity urge us, we ought not to abstain from wars, and warlike preparations for the defence of ourselves, of our Country, and paternal Laws, no not in Lent, least man should seem to tempt God, if when he hath means, he provide not for his own and others safety, and prevents not the Detriments of holy religion.  
Fourthly, 
b 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 Arms from Subjects wrongfully oppressed, invaded tyrannically by their Sovereigns, or their wicked Instruments, at, or without the Subjects entreaty, when they are unable to relieve themselves: no doubt the Subjects themselves, if able, may with better reason, and as good Conscience resist and repel; because every man is 
u Leu. 19 18. Mat. 22. 39 Rome 9 3. c. 14. 4. 1 Cor. 9 27. Phil. 2. 12. 1 Tim. 5. 8  nearer, and more obliged to defend and preserve himself and those of his own Nation, Religion, blood, than strangers are, and may with less public danger, inconvenience, and more speed effect it, than Foreigners: but Allies and Foreign Neighbour States and Princes, as 
x Dist. 23. qu. 3. to 8.  Gratian (o●t of the 5. Council of Carthage; Augustine, Ambrose, Hierom, Anastatius, Calistus and other) 
y De Jure Bell. l. 1. c. 14. 15. 16.  Albericus Gentilis, 
z Commonweal. 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 canonists, Casuists, Schoolmen accord, may in many cases with good conscience, by for● of Arms repulse from Subjects wrongfully oppressed, invaded, and tyrannically abused, the injuries offered them by their Sovereigns; and that either at, and in some cases without the Subjects entreaty: Which they prove by Moses his slaying the Egyptian that oppressed the Hebrew. Exod. 2. 11. to 15. by Joshua his aiding of the Gibeonites against the five Kings that made war against them, Josh. 10. by the example of Jehoshaphat, 1 Kin. 22. 2 Kings 3. Of the chief. Captain's securing Paul with a guard of Soldiers against the jews who had vowed his death, Acts 23. by Abraham's rescuing Lot, Gen. 14. by sundry ancient and late Examples in story. Therefore Subjects themselves no doubt if able, may with good reason and conscience, lawfully resist, and repel their Princes invading Forces, though accompanied, assisted with his personal presence.  
Fifthly, It is yielded by all Divines, Lawyers, Canonists, Schoolmen; as 
c Caus. 23. qu. 1. 2.  Gratian, 
d 1a. 2ae. qu. ● art. 10. & qu. 64. ar. 7. dub. 4.  Ban●es, 
e l. 4. disp. 5. art. 10. l. 5 qu. 1. art. 8.  Seto, 
f lib. 21. c. 9 du. 8.  Lessius, 
g l. 1. Contr Illust. 18.  Vasquius, 
h p. 3.  Covaruvi●s, 
i n 2. 2. 2 ae. qu. 64 art. 〈◊〉  Aquinas, 
k Verbo Bellum, par. 〈◊〉 n. 3. & p. 2. & Homicidium. 3. q. 4.  Sylvester, 
l ad l. ut vim. Di de Just. & jure.  Bartolus, 
m In rep. l. 1. & unde vi.  Baldus, 
n l. 11. c. 3. n. 147.  Navarre, 
o De jure Bel. l. 1. c. 13. 14.  Albericus Gentilis, 
p 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, principal members, and estates, lawfully resist all those who forcibly assault them, to deprive them thereof; yea and slay them to, unless they be public persons of eminency, by whose slaughter the Commonweal should sustain much prejudice, whose lives in such cases must not be willingly hazarded, though their violence be resisted: which is clearly proved by judges 11. 8. 15. to 18. 1 Sam. 17. 41. to 53. Deut. 22. 26. 27. since therefore all these are apparently endangered by an invasive war and Army, more than by any private assaults; and no aid, no assistance or protection against the loss of life, chastity, estate, and other violences, injuries which accompany wars can be expected from the Laws, or Prince himself (the fountain of this injustice,) or legal punishments inflicted on the malefactors, whose armed power being above the reach of common justice, and injuries countenanced, abetted, authorised by the Sovereign who should avenge and punish them, every subject in particular, and the whole state in Parliament assembled in general, may and aught in point of conscience jointly and severally to defend themselves, their neighbours, brethren, but especially their native Country, Kingdom, whose general safety is to be preferred before the lives of any particular persons, how great or considerable soever, which may be casually hazarded by their own wilfulness, though not purposely endangered or cut off in the defensive encounter, by those who make resistance. And if (according to 
q 2 2. Ar. 6. 7. q 2. Card. qu. 33. li 1. Petr. Nau. l. 11. Ca 3. n. 147. Grotius. de jure Belli. l. 2. c. 1. Sect. 4.  Cajetan and other Schoolmen,) Innocents' which only casually hinder one's flight from a mortal enemy may be lawfully with good conscience slain by the party pursued, in case where he cannot else possibly escape the loss of his own life, because every man's own life is dearer to him then another's, which he here takes away only to preserve his own life, without any malicious murderous intent, though others doubt of this case: or if innocent persons set perforce in the front of unjust assailants (as by the Cavalleires at Brainford and elsewhere,) to prevent defence, and wrong others with more security and less resistance, may casually be slain, (though not intentionally) by the defensive party (as I think they may) for prevention of greater danger and the public safety; 
r See the Relation of Brainford.  then certainly those of public place and Note; who wilfully and unnaturally set themselves to ruin their Country, Liberty, Religion, Innocent brethren (who only act the defensive part,) and voluntarily intrude themselves into danger, may questionless with safe conscience be resisted, repulsed: in which if they casually chance to lose their lives without any malice or ill intention in the defendants, it being only through their own default, such a casual accident when it happens, or the remote possibility of it in the combat before it begins, cannot make the resistance either unjust or unlawful in point of conscience; for then such a possibility of danger to a public person should make all resistance unlawful, deprive the Republic wholly of this only remedy against tyrannical violence, and expose the whole commonweal to ruin, whose weal and safety, is to be preferred before the life or safety of any one member of it whatsoever.  
Having thus at large evinced the lawfulness of Subjects necessary forcible resistance, & defensive wars against the unjust offensive Forces of their Sovereigns; I shall in the next place answer the principal arguments made against it, some whereof (for aught I find) are yet unanswered.  
These Objections are of four sorts, out of the Old Testament, the New; from reason, from the example of the primitive Christians, backed with the words of some Fathers; I shall propound and answer them in order.  
The first out of the Old Testament, 
Object. 1.  is that of Numb. 16. 
u Dr. Ferne Sect. 2. p. ●0.  Korah, Dathan, and Abiram for their insurrection against that very divine Authority which God himself had delegated to Moses and Aaron, without any injury or injustice at all once offered to them or any assault upon them. Ergo (mark the Nonsense of this argumentation) no Subjects may lawfully take up mere necessary defensive Arms in any case to resist the bloody Tyranny, Oppression, and outrages of wicked Princes, or their Cavalleires, when they make war upon them to destroy or enslave them.  
An Argument much like this in substance. 
Answ.  No man ought to rise up against an honest Officer or Captain in the due execution of his Office, when he offers him no injury at all. Therefore he ought not in conscience to resist him when he turns a thief or murderer, and feloniously assaults him, to rob him of his purse, or cut his throat. Or, private men must not causelessly mutiny against a lawful Magistrate for doing justice and performing his duty: Ergo the whole Kingdom in Parliament may not in Conscience resist the King's Captains and Cavalleeres, when they most unnaturally and impiously assault them to take away their Lives, Liberties, Privileges, Estates, Religion, oppose and resist justice, and bring the whole Kingdom to utter desolation. The very recital of this argument is an ample satisfactory refutation of it, with this addition. These seditious Levites Rebelled against Moses and Aaron, only because God himself had restrained them from meddling with the Priest's Office which they would contemptuously usurp, and therefore were most severely punished by God himself, against whose express Ordinance they Rebelled: Ergo, the Parliament and Kingdom may in no case whatsoever, though the King be bend to subvert God's Ordinances, Religion, Laws, Liberties, make the least resistance against the king or his invading forces, under pain of Rebellion, High Treason, and eternal condemnation, This is Doctor Fernes and some others, Bedlam Logic, & Divinity.  
The next is this, 
Object. 2.  Thou shalt not revile the Gods, nor curse the Ruler of thy people, Ex. 22. 28. 
* An appeal 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 bedchamber; (which is well explained by Prov. 17. 26. It is not good to strike Princes for equity.) Ergo it is unlawful for the Subjects to defend themselves against the King's Popish depopulating Cavaliers.  
I answer, 
Answ.  the first text pertains properly to Judges and other sorts of Rulers, not to Kings, not then in being among the Israelites: the second, to rich men as well as Kings. They may as well argue then from these texts: that no judges nor under-rulers, nor rich men whatsoever, though never so unjust or wicked, may or aught in conscience to be resisted in their unjust assaults, Riots, Robberies, no though they be bend to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties: as that the King and his Soldiers jointly or severally considered, may not be resisted: yea, these acute disputants may argue further by this new kind of Logic: Christians are expressly prohibited to curse or revile any man whatsoever, under pain of damnation, Rom. 12. 14. Mat. 5. 44. 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. Judas 9 Ergo, we ought to resist no man whatsoever, (no not a thief that would rob us, cutthroat Cavaliers that would murder us, lechers that would ravish us) under pain of damnation. What pious profitable Doctrine, think you, is this: All cursings and rail are simply unlawful in themselves: all resistance is not so, especially that necessary we now discourse of, against unlawful violence to ruin Church and State. To argue therefore, all resistance is simply unlawful, because cursing and reviling (of a different nature) are so, is ill Logic, and worse Divinity. If the objectors will limit their resistance, (to make the Argument sensible,) and propose it thus: All cursing and reviling of Kings and Rulers for executing justice impartially (for so is the chief intendment of the place objected, delinquents being apt to clamour against those who justly censure them) is unlawful; Ergo the forcible resisting of them in the execution of justice and their lawful authority is unlawful: the sequel I shall grant, but the Argument will be wholly impertinent, which I leave to the Objectors to refine.  
The third Argument is this: 
Object. 3.  That which peculiarly belongs to God, no man without his special authority ought to meddle with: 
p An Appeal to thy Conscience. p. 2.  But taking up Arms peculiarly belongeth to he Lord. Deut 32. 35. Where the Lord saith, vengeance is mine: especially the sword, which of all temporal vengeance is the greatest.  
The Objector puts no Ergo, 
Answ.  or conclusion to it, because it concludes nothing at all to purpose, but only this. Ergo, The King and Cavalleeres must lay down their Arms and swords, because God never gave them any special commission to take them up. Or, Ergo, no man but God must wear a sword, at least of revenge; and ●hether the kings and Cavalleers Offensive, or the Parliaments mere Defensive sword, be the sword of vengeance and malice, let the world determine, to the Objectors shame.  
The fourth is, 
Object. 4.  from 
q Appeal to thy Conscience. p. 3.  Eccles. 8. 2. 3. 4. I council thee to keep the King's Commandment and that in regard of the Oath of God: Be not hasty to go out of his sight, stand not in an evil thing; for he doth whatsoever pleaseth him: where the word of a king is there is power; and who may say unto him, what dost thou?  
This Text administers the Opposites a double Argument, 
Answ.  The first is this; All the King's Commands are to be kept of all his Subjects, by virtue of the Oaths of supremacy, allegiance, and the late protestation including them both: Ergo, by virtue of these Oaths we must not resist his Cavalleeres, but yield our thoates to their swords, our purses and estates to their rapines, our chastities to their Lecheries, our Liberties to their Tyrannies, our Laws to their lusts, our Religion to their Popish Superstition and Blasphemies, without any opposition, because the king hath oft commanded us not to resist them. But seeing the Oath and Law of God, and those oaths of ours, oblige us only, to obey the King's just legal commands and no other, not the Commands and lusts of evil Councillors and Soldiers, this first Argument must be better pointed ere it will wound our cause.  
The second, this: The king may lawfully do whatsoever pleaseth him Ergo, neither are He, or his Forces to be resisted. To which I answer, that this verse relates only unto God, the next antecedent; who only doth and may do what he pleaseth, and that both in heaven and earth, Psal. 135. 6. Psal. 115. 3 Esay 46. 10. not to Kings who neither may nor can do what they please in either, being bound both by the Laws of God, man, and their Coronation Oaths (perchance the oath of God here meant, rather than that of supremacy or allegiance) to do 
r Sam. 23. 3. Esay 32. 1. c. 16. 5. c. 9 7. 2 Chron. 9 8.  only what is lawful and just, not what themselves shall please. But admit it meant of Kings, not God: First the text saith not, that a king may lawfully do what he pleaseth: but he doth whatsoever pleaseth him: Solom●n himself 
s 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, etc. for which God threatened to rend the kingdom from himself, as he did the ten Tribes from his son, for those sins of his: 
t 2 Sam. c. 11. & 12. & 34.  David committed adultery, and wilfully numbered the people; and what King Jeroboam, Manasseh, Ahab, other wicked Kings have done, out of the pleasure and freedom of their lawless wills, to the infinite dishonour of God, the ruin of themselves, their posterities, Kingdoms, is sufficiently apparent in 
u In the books of Kings, Chronicles, jeremiah, and Daniel.  Scripture; was all therefore just, lawful, unblameable, because they did herein whatsoever they pleased, not what was pleasing to God? If not, as all must grant: then your foundation fails; that Kings may lawfully do whatsoever they will; and Solomon's words must be taken all together not by fragments; and these latter words coupled with the next preceding; Stand not in an evil matter: and then Paul's words will well interpret his, Rom. 13. 4. But if thou do that which is evil be afraid, for he beareth not the sword in vain, for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon them that do evil. So that the genuine sense of the place is, and must be this. Stand not in an evil matter, for the king path an absolute power to do whatsoever he pleaseth, in way of justice to punish thee, if thou continue obstinate in thy evil courses; to pardon thee, if thou confess, submit, and crave pardon for them. Ergo, the king and his Cavalleeres have an absolute power to murder, plunder, destroy his Subjects, subvert Religion, and he and his Forces must not herein be resisted, is an ill consequent from such good premises.  
The third is this: Where the word of a King is, there is power, 
* 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 job 34. 17. 18. 19 expound it,) Ergo the king or his Forces may not be resisted in any case: they might rather conclude. Therefore neither Kingdom nor Parliament, nor any Subject or person whatsoever ought to demand of the king, to what end, or why he hath raised Forces and Armed Papists against the Parliament, and Protestant Religion? These Court-Doctors might as truly conclude from hence: If the king should command us to say Mass in his Chapel, or our Parishes, to adorn Images, to turn professed Masspriests, etc. to vent any Erroneous Popish Doctrines; to pervert the Scriptures to support Tyranny and lawless cruelty: we must and will (as some of us do) cheerfully obey; for where the word of a King is, there is power, and we may not say unto him, what dost thou? If a King should violently ravish matrons, deflower virgins; unnaturally abuse youth, cut all his Subjects throats, fire their houses, sack their Cities, subvert their liberties; and (as 
x De Fontif. Rom. l. 4.  Bellarmine puts the case of the Pope's absolute irresistible authority) send millions of souls to hell; yet no man under pain of damnation, may or aught to demand of him, Domine cur ita facis? Sir, what do you? But was this the holy Ghosts meaning think you, in this place? If so, then 
y 2 Sam. 12. 7. etc.  Nathan was much to blame for reprehending king David's Adultery. 
z 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 burn incense to the Lord, etc. Were no less than Traitors. John Baptist was much overseen to tell King Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife. The Prophet who sharply reprehended Amaziah for his Idolatry and new altar, 2 Chron 25. 15. 16. was justly checked by the king. Eliiah was to be rebuked, for telling Ahab so plainly of his faults, 
a 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. 
b 2 King. 1. 3. 4. 16.  9 The meaning therefore of this Text, so much mistaken, (unless we will censure all these Prophets, and have Kings not only irresistible but irreprehensible for their wickedness) is only this: No man may presume to question the kings just actions, warranted by his lawful royal power: (this text being parallel with Rom. 13. 1. 2. 3. 4.) What then? Ergo, None must question or resist his, or his Cavalleers unjust violence and proceedings, (not the Parliament the supremest judicature and Sovereign Power in the Kingdom) is a ridiculous consequence: yet this is all this Text doth contribute to their present dying bad cause.  
The 5. 
Object. 5.  is that usually objected Text of 
c 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 anointed. Ergo the King and his Cavaliers must not be so much as touched nor resisted, I wonder they did not as well argue, Ergo none must henceforth kiss his Majesty's hand (since it cannot be done without touching him,) neither must his Barber trim him, nor his Bedchamber-men attire him, for fear of high Treason in touching him: And the Cavaliers must not henceforth be arrested for their debts, apprehended for their robberies and murders; neither must the Chirurgeon dress their wounds, or pock-soars, or otherwise touch them, (so dangerous is it to touch them, not out of fear of infection, but) for fear of transgressing this sacred Text, scarce meant of such unhallowed God-dammee●. Such conclusions had been more literal and genuine than the first.  
But to answer this long since exploded trivial Objection, 
Answ.  not named by Dr Ferne, though revived by others since him. I say first, that this Text concerns not kings at all, but the true anointed Saints of God their Subjects, whom kings have been always apt to oppress and persecute, witness Psal. 2. 2. etc. Act. 4. 26. 27. Act. 12. 1, 2, 3 with all sacred and Ecclesiastical Histories, ancient or modern. This is most apparent; first, because these words were spoken by God to Kings themselves, as the Text is express, Psal 105 14, 15. 1 Chron. 16. 20, 21. He suffered no man to do them wrong, but reproved even KINGS for their sakes, saying, (even to king themselves, namely to king Pharaoh, an king Abim●lech, Gen. 12. 10. to 20. Chap. 20. and 26 1. to 17. 29) Touch not mine Anointed, and do my Prophets no harm: Therefore not meant of kings. Secondly, because these words were spoken directly and immediately of Abraham, Isaac, jacob, their wives and families, as it is evident by Verse 6. the whole series of the Psalm, which is Historical; the forecited Texts of Genesis to which the words relate, the punctual confession of Augustine, and all other Expositors on this Psalm; Now neither they, nor their wives, nor their children clearly, were actual, much less anointed Kings; For first, they lived long before the government of kings was erected among the Israelites, of whom 
d 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 only of their own small families, and that under foreign Kings; therefore doubtless no kings at all. Fourthly, this was spoken of these Patriarches Wives and Families, as well as of themselves, (and they certainly were no kings, unless you will have kingdoms consisting only of kings, and no subjects at all) Verse 12. 14. Gen. 12. 15. to 20. Chap. 20. 2. to 17. Chap. 26. 11. Chap. 34. 30. Chap. 35. 6. Fifthly, the Scripture no where calls them kings, much less the Text, which terms them expressly Prophets, Touch not mine Anointed, and do MY PROPHETS (not properly so taken, but largely, that is, My servants, my chosen people, as Verse 6. expounds it) no harm: The later Clause, Do my Prophets no harm, being an exact interpretation of the former, Touch not mine Anointed, that is, My Prophets and Servants, so far forth as to do 
e See Zeph. 2. 8. Gen. 20. 6. job 1. 11. c. 2. 5. c. 19 c. 5. 19 c. 12. 14. Gen. 26. 11. 29. jer. 12. 14. 1 joh. 5. 18.  them harm; For in a common sense, no doubt, they 
f 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 embracement, assistance, and the like Sixtly, Though there were kings in Abraham's days or before, as is evident by Gen. 14. 1, 2, etc. yet there were no anointed kings, nor were kings ever called Gods anointed till Saul's days, who was the first anointed King I read of, 1 Sam. 10. 1. and the first king ever styled, The 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 only of those Saints of God, who were metaphorically and spiritually anointed, having the gifts and graces of God's Spirit, Psal. 28. 8, 9 Hab. 3. 13. 2. Cor. 1. 21. 1 john 2. 27. Eze. 16. 9 Isay 20. 27. This Text then being not meant of kings which are actually, but of Christians only spiritualy anointed, in regard of which anointing (as I have 
g The Vindication and Revindication of Psal. 105. 14, 15  elsewhere largely manifested) they are in Scripture, not only styled Christians (which in plain English is anointed) 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. jam. 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 war upon them, not only to harm, but plunder, murder, destroy them utterly, extirpate that Religion they profess and are bound to maintain, they are obliged in point of conscience, under pain of damnation, not to resist; Whereas the conclusion should be directly contrary. Therefore they may lawfully with good conscience resist them to the uttermost, in such cases: For since God hath thus directly enjoined Kings, Not to touch, or do them harm; if Kings will 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 injury which God himself prohibits; else they should be accessories to their king's injustice, and authors of their own wrongs, according to these received Maxims; 
h 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 definite 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 erroneous sense safely argue thence, That if subjects take up Arm against their Princes, contrary to this Text, their Princes may by virtue of this precept, justly resist them with force, and repulse their injuries; then by the true genuine sense thereof (being meant of Subjects, Saints, not Kings) if Kings will violently assault and make war upon Saints, their Subjects, to harm them, they may with as good reason and conscience defend themselves against their Kings and ill Instruments, as their Kings protect themselves in this sort against them, and that by authority of this Text, by our Opposites own argumentation.  
Thirdly, admit this Scripture meant of Kings, yet what strength is there in it to privilege them from just necessary resistance? If any, it must rest in the word anointed; but this will afford kings no such corporal privileges as many fancy, neither from lawful resistance, nor deposition, nor sentence of death itself, which I shall undeniably evidence to refute a commonly received error: For, first, it is apparent, that the anointed here meant, are such only who are spiritually anointed, either with the external profession and ceremonies of Gods true religion, or with the internal graces of the Spirit; for neither Abraham, Isaac, jacob, nor their families (nor any kings or Priests in their days) for aught we find, were corporally anointed. Besides, the anointing here intended, is that which is common to 
i Exod. 30. 30. c. 40. 13, 15. Levit. 4. 3. 16. 1 King. 19 16.  Priests and Prophets (as Touch not mine anointed, and do my Prophets no harm, infallibly proves) rather then that which is peculiar to kings. Whence I thus argue, That anointing which is common to subjects as well as kings, and cannot secure any subjects, who in the genuinesence of the Text, are Gods anointed, from just resistance, corporal violence, legal censures, or death, cannot in or of itself alone secure kings from any of these, no further than it secures subjects: for the anointing being the same in both, must have the selfsame operation and immunities in both. But this anointing in subjects can neither exempt their persons from necessary just resistance, if they unlawfully assault or war upon their Superiors, equals, inferiors; nor free them from arrests, imprisonments, arraignments, deprivations, or capital censures, if they offend and demerit them, as we all know by 
k Eccles. 9 2. c. 8. 14. Ezec●. 18. 24, 26. Ich. 16. 2.  Scripture and experience: Therefore it can transfer no such corporal immunities or exemptions from all or any of these, to kings; but only, exempt them from unlawful violence and injuries, in point of right, so far forth, as it doth other Subjects. In a word, this anointing being common to all Christians, can give no special Prerogative to Kings, but only such as are common to all Subjects, as they are Christians. Secondly, admit it be mean● of an actual external anointing, yet that of itself affords Kings no greater privilege than the inward unction, of which it is a type, neither can it privilege them from just resistance, or just corporal censures of all sorts. First, it cannot privilege them from the just assaults, invasions, resistance, corporal punishments of other foreign kings, Princes, States, Subjects not subordinate to them, who upon any just cause or quarrel may lawfully resist, assault, wound, apprehend, imprison, slay, depose, judge, censure foreign kings, even to death; as is apparent by 
l 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 
m Iosh. 8. 29.  Ai hanged by joshua, the 
n Iosh. 10. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26.  five kings of Canaan that besieged Gibeon, on whose neks joshua made his men of war to put their feet, than smote, slew, and hanged them upon five trees. Who also assaulted, resisted, imprisoned, condemned, slew, executed divers other 
o Iosh. 10. 42. c. 11. & 12. 7. to 24.  kings of Canaan, to the number of thirty one in all; by king 
p judge, 1, 26, to 76.  Adonibezek, 
q judge, 3, to ●6  Eglon, 
r 1 Sam. 15, 32, 33.  Agag, with other Heathen Kings, imprisoned, stabbed, hewn in pieces by the Israelites. If any object, These kings were not actually anointed, which they cannot prove, since 
s Isay, 45, 10  Cyrus an Heathen King, is styled Gods anointed; no doubt Saul was an anointed 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.  josiah an anointed good King, was slain by Pharaoh Necho King of Egypt, whom he rashly encountered; 
t 1 King. 22, 34, 35.  King Ahab was slain by an Archer of the King of Assyria, 
u 2 King 9, 〈◊〉 27.  King joram and Ahaziah were both slain by jehu, by God's command; 
x 2 Chr. 31. 10. 6, 7.  jehoaaz was deposed by the King of Egypt, 
y 2 Ki. 2●, 6, 7  jehoiakim and jehoiakin both deposed, fettered and kept prisoners by the King of Babylon; bylone; who also y app●eherded deposed, judicially condemned King Zedechiah, put out his eyes, and sent him prisoner to B●hylon bound with fetters of brass. So 
z 2 Chron, 33, 11, 1●.  Manasses was deposed, bound with fetters of brass, and carried captive by the Captains of the King of Assyria. 
a 2 King 14, 33.  Amaziah King of judah was taken prisoner by jehoash King of Israel. Infinite are the precedents in stories, where kings of one Nation in just wars, have been assaulted, invaded, imprisoned, deposed, slain, by Princes and Subjects of another Nation; and that justly, as all grant without exception; neither their anointing, nor Kingship being any exemption or privilege to them at all in respect of foreigners, in cases of hostility, to whom they are no Sovereigns, no more than to any of their Subjects. Whereas if this royal anointing did make their persons absolutely sacred and inviolable, no foreign Princes or Subjects could justly apprehend, imprison, smite, wound, slay, depose, or execute them. Secondly, Kings who are subordinate 
b See M. Seldens Titles of Honour l. 〈◊〉 3, s●ct 1, 2, Bodin Communwal. v. 3, l. 2, c. 5. joseph De Bello Indaico, l. 1. c 10. 15.  Homagers and Subjects to other Kings or Emperors, though anointed, may for Treasons and Rebellions against them, he lawfully resisted, assaulted, imprisoned, deposed, judged to death and executed, because as to them they are but Subjects, notwith●●anging their anointing, as appears by sund●y precedents in our own and foreign Histories; and is generally confessed by the learned. Thirdly, the Roman, Greek and Germane Experours though anointed, the ancient Kings of France, Spain, Arragon, Britain, Hungary, Poland, Denmark, Bohemia, India, Sparta, and other places (who were not absolute Monarches) have in former ages been lawfully resisted imprisoned, deposed, and some of them, judicially adjudged to death and executed by their own Senates, Parliaments, Diets, States, for their oppression, maladministration, tyranny, and that justly, as 
c Commonw. l. 2, c 5.  Bodin, 
d De jure Belli, l. 1. c. 3, sect. 11. 16.  Grotius, with others affirm, notwithstanding any pretence that they were anointed Sovereigns. Fourthly, Popes, Bishops and Priests anciently were, and at this present in the Romish Churches are actually anointed as well as Kings; and we know the 
e In their titles and cont. oudrsies de Immunitate Cleri●erum, Bishop Latimers' ●ermon at Stamford, f. 67, b.  Popish Clergy and Canonists have frequently alleged this Text, Touch not mine anointed and do my Prophets no harm, in Counsels, decretals and solemn debates in Parliament, to prove their exemption from the arrests, judgements, capital censures and proceedings of Kings and secular judges for any crimes whatsoever, because (forsooth) they were Gods anointed, intended in this Text, not Kings; therefore Kings and Seculars must not touch, nor offer any the least violence to their persons, no not in a way of justice. By colour of this Text they exceedingly deluded the world in this particular for ●undreds of years. But in the seventh year of Hen. the 8. in 
f Keilwayes Resorts, f. 181.  Dr. Standish his case debated before a Committee of both Houses of Parliament, and all the judges of England, this Text being chiefly insisted on to prove the Clergies exemption, Jure Divino, was wholly exploded in England, and since that in Germany, France, other Realms; and notwithstanding its protection, many 
g See par. r. p. 88 & Fox Act & Monuments.  Fopes, Bishops, and Clergymen in all Kingdoms, ages, for all their anointing, have for their misdemeanours not only been resisted, apprehended, imprisones, but deprived, degraded, hanged, quartered burned, as well as other men (Yea 
h 1 King. 2, 26, 27.  Abiathar the High Priest was deposed by S. ●omon for his Treason against him, notwithstanding his Anointing;) their anointing giving them not the smallest immunity to do ill, or not to suffer all kinds of corporal, capital punishments for their misdemeanours. If this actual anointing then, cannot lawfully exempt or secure Priests and Prelates persons, nor the Pope himself from the premises, how then can it justly privilege the persons of Kings? Fifthly, among the Papists all infants, either in their baptism, or confirmation are actually anointed with their consecrated 
i See Claudius E●sencaeus Dig. s. in. P●o●. ●pist. ad Tim. d. c. rismatis usu p. 261, etc.  Chrism, and with 
k Espencaeus Ibid. See homas it aldensis, Bellarmine and others, De Sacramento extremae u●ctiours, and all Schoolmen and Canonists, De Sacrame, torum Numero & Extrunct.  extreme unction to boot at last cast, which they make 
l 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 sovereign Nature than the very anointing of Kings at their inauguration, which they repute no Sacrament, as being no where commanded by God: But neither of these actual unctions, exempt all or any of those anointed with it from resistance, or any corporal punishments, or just censures of any king; therefore the very anointing of Kings cannot do it. Sixthly, the Ceremony of anointing kings, as 
m Cassanaens Ibid. & Consid. 19  Cassanaeus with others write, is peculiar only to the Germane Emperor, the King of jerusalem, the King of France, the King of England, and the King of Sicily; but to no other kings else, who are neither anointed nor crowned, as he affirms; so that it cannot give any privilege at all to any but only to these 4. not other kings, who are not anointed Now seeing only these 4. kings are actually anointed, yea lawful Kings and their persons sacred, even before they are anointed or crowned, yea other king's persons (as of Spain, Hungary, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, etc.) who are not anointed, are as sacred, as exempt from danger, as those who are enoyled; And seeing the anointing of kings is at this day a mere arbitrary humane Ceremony, not enjoined by divi●e authority, nor common to all Kings, who are 
n Cook 7. ●eport. calvin's 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 itself derives no personal Prerogatives or Immunities at all to kings, much less an absolute exemption from all actual resistance in cases of unjust invasions on their Subjects, or from the censures of their Parliaments for public destructive exorbitances, as most have hitherto blindly believed.  
Neither will the frequent next objected speeches of David concerning Soul. Impeach the premises, 1 Sam. 24. 6. 10. c. 26. 9 11. 2. & 2 Sam. 1. 12. 16. The Lord forbid that I should do this thing unto my Master the Lords Anointed, to stretch forth my hand against him seeing he is the Lords Anointed. I will not put forth my hand against my Lord, for he he is the Lords anointed. And David said to Abishai, Destroy him not, for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Anointed, and he guiltless? The Lord forbid that I should stretch forth his hand against the Lords Anointed. The Lord delivered thee into my hand to day, but I would not stretch forth mine hand against the Lords Anointed. How wa● thou not afraid to siretch forth thy hand against the Lords Anointed? Thy blood shall be upon thy head, for thy mouth hath testified that thou hast slain the Lords Anointed. Which several Texts seem at first sight to insinuate, that Saul's very external anointing was that which did secure his person from assauls and violence; and that it is unlawful even by way of defence, forcibly with Arms to resist a persecuting unjustly invading king, because he is anointed.  
But these Texts, if duly pondered, will warrant neither of these conclusions. First then, 
Object. S. An●sw.  I answer, that Saul's bore anointing, considered as an external Ceremony to declare him a lawful King, did not, could not add any immunity to his person against david's, or any other Subjects just violent resistance, as the premised reasons manifest; but it was only his royal Sovereign Office conferred on him by God and the people, to which his external anointing by Samuel was but a preparation That which made Saul, with other his successors, a king, was not his bare anointing. For 
o 1 Sam. 10. 1, 2. 24.  Saul himself was anointed by Samuel, before he was made and chosen King, not when he was made King. So 
p 1 Sam. 16. 1, to 14  David, 
q ● king, 19 〈◊〉, 16.  Hazael, 
r 1 king. 19 16. 2 king 9 1. to 3.  selu, with others, were anointed before they were actual Kings, and many of their Successors by descent, were real kings before they were anointed; some of them being not anointed at all for aught we read: therefore their unction made them not kings, since neither simply necessary, nor essential to their being kings. Nor did Saul's anointing only, preceding his Regality, make his person sacred, or any other kings persons; for than it would follow, That if Saul had not been actually anointed, or had continued king for some years without this anointing, than David in such a case might lawfully have slain him, without check of conscience, and that the persons of kings not at all anointed; and of hereditary kings before their Coronations, till they are anointed, should not be sacred, nor exempt from violence; which is both false and perilous to affirm; but it was his Sovereign Royal Authority over David (than his Son-in-law, Servant, Subject) which restrained him from offering violence to his person. Soul then being thus privileged, not because he was anointed, but because he was an anointed king, and that not quatenus Anointed, but quatenus King; the true sense and genuine interpretation of these Texts must be, That Saul's person was sacred, exempt from his Subject's violence, not because he was anointed, as if that only did privilege him; but because he was a lawful king 
s 1 Sa. 15, 16, 17. c. 10. 1, 2, 4.  appointed by the Lord himself, the 
t 1 Sam. 12, 13. c. 15. 13. c. 16 1, 1 Chro. 28.  Lords anointed, being but a periphrasis, or form of speech, wherein the Geremony of anointing, is used for the Regality, or kingly power itself, declared not conferred by anointing, and in plain words without any figure, it is put for, the Lords King, that is, a King appointed by the Lord; in which sense God calls Christ 
v Psal 2. 6. Psal. 18. 50.  my King; and David styles himself x Gods King. Saul's Royal Authority without his anointing, not his anointing, predestinating him to his Authority being the ground of this his immunity from David's violence. Secondly, 
y 1 Sam. 10. 1, 2, 24.  Saul was anointed some space before he was made King, and 
z 1 Sam. 16. 1. 10 14.  David many year before he came to the Crown: I would then demand of any man; if Saul or David after their unction, and before their election and inauguration to the Crown had invaded or assaulted any of the people in an hostile manner, whether they might not have justly resisted, repulsed, yea slain them to in their own necessary defence? If not, than one Subject may not repulse the unjust violence of another in an elective kingdom, if by possibility he may after wards be chosen king, though for the present he be neither actually king nor Magistrate, but a Shepherd, as David was, Psal. 78. 70, 71. which I presume none will affirm, I am certain none can prove: If so, than it was not Saul's anointing but only his Royal Authority, which made David thus to spare his life, his person. So that our Opposites pressing this Argument only from his Anointing, is both false and idle, as all the premises demonstrate.  
But to set the Argument right; I answer thirdly, That all which these Texts and David's example prove, is but this. That Subjects ought not wilfully or purposely to murder or offer violence to the persons of their kings; especially in cold blood when they do not actually assault them. Ergo they may not resist, repulse their personal actual assaults, nor oppose their cutthroat Cavaliers when they make an unjust war against them. Which Argument is a mere Non sequitur.  
For 1. David's example extends only to Saul's own person, not to his Soldiers, who were neither kings, nor Gods Anointed; and whom David no doubt would have resisted and slain too had they assaulted him, though he spared Saul: as 
a Sect. 2, p. 8.  Dr. Fern himself insinuates in these words; David's Guard that he had about him, was only to secure his person against the cutthroats of Saul, if sent to take away his life, etc. He was anointed and designed by the Lord to succeed Saul, and therefore he might use an extraordinary way of safeguarding his person: Therefore he and his Guard would and might doubtless have with a safe conscience resisted, 
Sect,  repulsed Saul's cutthroat Soldiers, had they assaulted David, to take away his life. And iffo, than the King's 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, unless I could not otherwise preserve my own life by slight or resistance. 
b 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 illegal assaults, much more than of malicious and premeditated: but yet denies, he may either wound or kill him, and that truly. To argue therefore from David's example and words, The King may not with safe conscience be wittingly slain by his subjects: Ergo, He and his Cavaliers may not be forcibly resisted, repulsed by them for their own defence and preservation, is a gross inconsequent by the Doctors own confession.  
Thirdly, there is nothing in all these speeches, or the practice, or in David, pertinent to the case in dispute; for when 
c 1. Sam. 2 c. 3. 10 16.  David's men moved him to kill Saul, and would have risen up against him, to slay him, & David refused to act, or suffer his men to do it; neither Saul not any of his men did actually assault David or his followers, nor so much as once discover them; but Saul went casually to cover his feet into the Cave, where they lay hid; which done, he rose up and went on his way, not once espying David (though he cut off the skirt of his Robe privily) nor any of his men with him. To argue therefore, That David and his men might not with a safe conscience stretch forth their hands and rise up against their Sovereign king Saul, to kill him thus in cold blood, when he assaulted them not, nor so much as thought of their being in the Cave, and went out of it quietly, not discovering them; Ergo, they might not, they would not in conscience have resisted, repulsed him, or his Forces, had they assaulted, or given them battle in the Cave, is a Nonsense Conclusion; just in effect the same with this. I may not resist or repulse one who assaulrs me not, Ergo, I may not resist one that actually assaults me to take away my life, or to beat, rob, wound me: What Logic, Reason, Law or Divinity is there in such an argument? So after this when 
d 1. Sam. 26, ● 7. to 25  Abishai said to David, God hath delivered Saul thine enemy into thy hand this day, now therefore let me smite him, I pray thee, with the spear, even to the earth at once, I will not smite him the second time: And David said to Abishai, Destroy him not, for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Anointed (to wit, to slay him purposely, as Abishai intended) and be guiltless? The Text is express. That Saul and his men were then in their own Trenches, fast a sleep, because a deep sleep from the Lord was fallen upon them; David and Abishai were here the only affailants, they came into Saul's Trenches, he and his whole army were in so sound a sleep, that they came to Saul's own person, took away with them his Spear, and the Cruse or water from his Bolster, and departed, not being once discerned; No man resists, assaults, discovers them. To slay Saul thus in cold blood, without any assault or present provocation, and especially upon a private quartel, had been Treachery and impiety in a Son-in-Law, a Servant, a Subject a successor; and to do it with the hazard of their own lives, had any of Saul's Army been awakened at the stroke Abishai would have given him. (as probably they might have been) they being but two, and within their enemy's Trenches, in the midst of the Army, who might have easily and speedily slain them, had been rashness, indiscretion; their departure with the Spear and Cruse was more Heroical, Loyal, prudential. To conclude therefore, as our Opposites do from this speech and example, That David thought it unlawful in point of Conscience for him or Abishai to murder his Sovereign Lord King Saul, when he and his men were thus fast asleep in the midst of their Trenches, offering them no wrong, making no actual assaults upon them; Ergo, they could not, would not justly with safe consciences have forcibly defended themselves against Saul and his Army, had they been assaulted by them in their own Trenches; is a 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 BATTLE AND PERISH; which intimates, that if Saul would force him to a battle, than he might lawfully defend himself against his violence, though he might not murder him now in his sleep, when he did him no hard; and if he casually perished in the battle, it was Saul's own wilful default, not his, who could not dissuade him by all this his fair carriage and sparing of his life, (when he had those two advantages to slay him) from his violent prosecution, nor yet succeed him in the Crown (as God had appointed and foretold) should he suffer him to murder him and his men in battle without resistance. Yea, David's earnestness to go with Achish and the Pallistines to the battle against Sanl, wherein he perished, 1 Sam. 2● (unless we will tax Davide for a notable Hypocrite and dissembler) unanswerably eviden●eth, that he deemed it lawful to resist, to encounter Saul and his Forces in battle, not withstanding his person might chance to perish in the fight, though not to slay him treacheously, and basely upon the precedent advantages: And his slaying of that lying 
e 2 Sam. 2.  Amalekite who brought him tidings of Saul's death, reporting that himself had slain him, to gain a reward from David, he being then one of Saul's soldiers (as it seems) concludes only, that it was not lawful for any of Saul's own men to sally him, by his own command: Not that resistance of him in the open battle was unlawful in point of conscience. Other answer might be given to this Objection concerning David and Saul. As 1. that this difference was but private and personal between Saul and David, David being then Saul's private subject, Servant, Son in Law, not public between Saul his whole Parliament or Kingdom; now many things are unlawful to be done in private quarrels, which are just and honourable in public differences.  
Secondly, that David himself, though he thus forbore to murder Saul, yet he tells him, 1. Sam. 24, 10, 11, 12. This day thine eyes have seen how that the Lord had delivered thee 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 anointed. Moreover, my father, see, yea see the skirt of thy Robe in my hand, for in that I cut off the skirt of thy Robe and KILLED THEY NOT, know then and see, that there is neither evil nor transgression in mine hand, and I have not sinned against thee, yet then huntest my soul to take it. The Lord judge between me & thee, and the Lord avenge me of thee, but mine hand shall not be upon thee, and plead my cause and deliver me out of thine hand. And after this upon the second advantage, he useth like words, The Lord render to every man according to his right consnes & faithfulness, for the Lord delivered thee into my hand to day, 
1 Sam. 26. 23, 24.  but I would not stretch forth my hand against the Lords anointed. And behold, as THY LIFE WAS MUCH SET BY THIS DAY IN MY EYES, so let my life be much set by in the eyes of the Lord, and let him deliver me out of all tribulations: Wherein David declared, that God had given up Saul's life into his power, that it was his own mere goodness that moved him to spare Saul contrary to his Soldiers, and Abishaies minds, who would have slain him, without any scruple of conscience; that the reasons he spared him were: First, because he was Gods Anointed, 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 unnatural act in him. Thirdly, because it had favoured only of private self-revenge and ambitious aspiring to the Crown before due time, which became not David, the quarrel, being than not public, but particular betwixt him and David only, who was next to succeed him after his death. Fourthly, because by this his lenity he would convince & reclaim Saul from his bloody pursuit, and clear his innocency to the world. Fifthly, to evidence his dependence upon God and his special promise; that he should enjoy the Crown after Saul by divine appointment; and therefore he would not seem to usurp it by taking Saul life violently away. Most of which consideration fail in cases of public defence, and the present controversy. Thirdly, that Saul himself, as well as David's Soldiers, conceived, that David might with safe conscience have slain as well as spared him; witness his words, 1. Sam. 24. 17, 18, 19 Thou art more righteous than I, for thou hast rewarded me good, where as I have rewarded thee evil: And thou hast shewedme this day how thou hast deals well with me; for as much as when the Lord had delivered me into thine hand THOU KILLED'ST ME NOT. For if a man find his enemy WILL HE LET HIM GO WELL AWAY? Wherefore the Lord reward three good for that thou hast done unto me this day, etc. And in 1. Sam. 26. 21. Then said Saul, I have sinned; return my son David, for I will no more do thee harm, because my solve was precious in thine eyes this day; behold I have played the fool exceedingly, etc. But the former answers are so satisfactory, that I shall not pray in aid from these, much less from that evasion of Dr. Fern, who makes this, and all other Davids demeanours in standing out against Saul 
f Sect. 2. p. 2.  EXTRAORDINARY; for he was anointed and designed by the Lord to succeed Saul; and therefore he might also use all extraordinary ways of safe guarding his persons; which like wise insinuates, that this his scruple of conscience in sparing Saul's life was but extraordinary, (the rather, because all his Soldiers and Abishai would have slain Saul without any such scruple, and Saul himself conceived, that any man else but David would have done it:) and so by consequence affirms, that this his sparing of Saul is no ways obligatory to other subjects, but that they may lawfully in David's case kill their Sovereigns; But David's resistauce of Saul by a guard of men, being only that ordinary way which all subjects in all ages have used in such cases, and that which nature teacheth not only men, but all living creatures generally to use for their own defence, and this evasion derogating exceedingly from the personal safety of Princes, yea, and exposing them to such perils as they have cause to con the Dr. small thanks for such a bad invention, I shall reject it as the extraordinary fancy of the Dr. & other loyalists, void both of truth and loyalty.  
The 7. 
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; 
g 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 BUT 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 only of the oppression, violence, and injun (not lawful power) of Kings, which should cause them thus to cry out to God This truth we have clearly gained by this objection, for which some Royalists will renounce their champion. 2. It is but a mere fallacy and absurdity not warranted by the Text; which saith not, that they shall only cry out; or that they shall use no remedy or resistance, but crying out; which had been material, but ba●ely, ye shall cry out in that day, etc. Ergo, they must and should only cry out, and not resist at all; is a gross Nonsequitur: which Argument because much cried up, I shall demonstrate the palpable absurdity of it by many parrallell instance. First, Every Christian is bound to pray for Kings and Magistrates, 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2. Ergo, they must only pray and not fight for them, nor yield tribute or obedience to them: Kings and their Subjects too are bound to cry out, and pray to God against foreign enemies that come to war against them, as 
b Exod. 14.  Moses did against Pharaoh and his Host, 
i Psa. 59 I. 10 and other Psal.  David against his enemies, 
k 2 Chron. 32. 20. 2 King. 19  Hezekiah against Sennacherib and his Host, 
l 2 Chron. 14. 9 9 to 15.  Asa against his enemies, 
m 2 Chron. 13 14, 15, 16.  Abijah and the men of judah against jeroboam and the Israelites their enemies; and as all Christians usually do against their enemies. (Yea, I make no doubt but the Doctor, and other Court-Chaplains, inform his Majesty and the Cavalleers, that they must cry to God against the Parliamenteers and Round heads now in Arms to resist them;) Ergo, they must only pray, but in no wise resist or fight against them; All men must pray to God for their 
n Mat. 16. 11.  daily bread: Ergo, they must only pray and not labour for it; Sick 
o jam. 5. 14, 15, 16.  persons must pray to God to restore their health: Ergo, they must take no Physic, but only pray; All men are expressly commanded to 
p Psal. 50. 15  cry and call upon God in the day of trouble, Ergo, they must use no means but prayer to free themselves from trouble; pretty Logic, Reason, Divinity, fitter for derision then any serious Answer. This is all this Text concludes, and that grossly mistaken Speech of Saint Ambrose, Christians weapons are Prayers, and Tears; of which anon i● its due place, In one word, prayer no more excludes resistance, than resistance, prayer; both of them may, and sometimes (when defence is necessary, as now) ought to concur; so that our Court Doctors may as well argue, (as some Prelates not long since did in word and deed) Ministers ought to pray, and God's 
* 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 king's oppressions, Ergo, they must not petition their Kings, much less complain to their Parliament for relief; as conclude from thence; Ergo, they may in no case resist the king, 
Object. 8.  or his invading Forces, though they endeavour to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, as the Doctor himself states the controversy: whose arguments will hardly satisfy conscience, being so void of reason, sense; yea science.  
The eighth is this, 
q Dr fern, Sect. 2, 3. An Appeal to thy Conscience.  None of the Prophets in the old Testament, reprehending the Kings of Israel and judeh for their gross jaolatry, cruelty, oppression, did call upon the Elder of the people for the duty of resistance; neither do we find the people resisting, or taking up Arms against any of their kings, no not against Ahab or Manasseh, upon any of these grounds: Ergo, resistance is unlawful.  
To which I must reply, 
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 lawful, 
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, jud. l. 4. c. 8.  josephus resolves expressly, That by the very Law of God, Deuter. 17. If the King did contrary to that Law, multiply silver gold, and horses to himself, more than was fitting, theisraelites might lawfully resist him, and were bound to do it, to preserve themselves from Tyranny; Therefore no doubt they might have lawfully resisted their King's Idolatry, 
4.  cruelty oppressions. Fourthly, 
q Explanat. Artit. 42. Operum, Tom. 1. 84  Hulderichus Zuinglius, a famous Protestant Divine, with others, positively affirms, That the Israelites might not only lawfully resist, but likewise depose● he●r Kings for their wickednesses and Idolatries; yea, That all the people were justly punished by God, because they removed not their flagitious, idolatrous Kings and Princes out of their places, which he proves by jerem 15. where after the four Plagues there recited, the Prophet subjoins the cause of them, saying, Verse 4. I will give them in fury to all the Kingdoms of the Earth; (that is, I will stir up in fury all the kings of the earth against them) because of Manasseh the son of Hezekiah king of judah, for that which he did in jerusalem. This Manasseh had committed many wickednesses by Idolatry and the stedding of innocent blood, as we may see in the one and twentieth Chapter of the second of the Kings; for which evils the Lord grievously punished the people of Israel: Manasseh shed overmuch innocent blood, until he had filled jerusalem even to the mouth, with his sins wherewith he made judah to sin, that it might do evil before the Lord: Therefore because Manasseh King of judah did these most vile abominations, above all that the Amorites had done before him, and made the Land of judah to sin in his undeanesse, therefore thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Behold, I will bring evil upon jerusalem and judah, that whosever shall hear, both his ears shall tingle etc. In sum, if the jews had not thus permitted their King to be wicked WITHOUT PUNISMENT, they had not been so griev●●nsly punished by God. We ought to pull and crossed away even our eye that offends so a hand and foot, etc. 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 
s Third Part of the True Difference between Christion subjection, &c p. 513. 514.  B. Rilson himself in some sort accords who in the ending & interpreting his opinion, c●ntesseth, 
t 1 Sam. 14.  That it is a question among the Learned, What Sovereignty the whole people of Israel had over their Kings; confessing, that the people's resouing jonathan that he died not, when Saul would have put him to d●●th, 
u 1 Chron. 13.  David's speech to the people when he purposed to reduce the Ark, 
x 1 Kin. 12.  all the Congregations speech and carriage toward Rehoboam when they came to make him King, with the 
y jer. 26.  people: speech to jeremy, Thou shalt die the death; have persuaded some, and might lead Zuingli●s to think that the people of Israel, notwithstanding they called for a King, yet RE●ERVED TO THEMSELVES SUFFICIENT AUTHORITY TO OVERRULE THEIR KING, IN THOSE THINGS WHICH SEEMED EXPEDIENT AND NEEDFUL FOR THE PUBLIC WLLFARE; else God would not punish the people for the king's iniquity, which they must suffer, and not redress. Which opinion, if as Orthodox, as these learned Divines and josephus aver it, not only quite ruins our Opposites Argument, but their whole Treatises and cause at once. But five, I answer, that subjects not only by command of God's Prophets, but of God himself, and by his special approbation have taken up Arms against their Idolatrous Princes, to ruin them and their Posterities: A truth so apparent in Scripture, that I wonder our purblind Doctors discern it not: For did not God himself, notwithstanding his frequent (conditional) Promises to establish the Kingdom of Israel on David, Solomon and their Posterity; for 
z 1 King. 11. 1. to 40.  Solomon's gross Idolatry (occasioned by his Wives) tell Solomon in express terms? Wherhfore for as much as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my Covenant and my Statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely REND THE KINGDOM FROM THEE, and will give it to thy servant. Notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it, for David thy father's sake; but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son. Did not the Prophet Abijah in pursuance hereof, rending jerohoams 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 son's 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, 
a 1 King. 12. 2 Chr. 10.  did not ALL ISRAEL upon Solomon's death, when Rehoboam his son refused to grant their just 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 less, to your Tents o Israel: now see to thine own house David. Whereupon they departed and fell away from the house of David ever after, and made jereboam King over all Israel. And doth not the Text directly affirm? Whenefore Rehoboam harkened not unto the people, for the cause was from the Lord, that he might perform the saying which the Lord spoke to Abijah unto jeroboam, the son of Nebat. After which when Rehoboam raised a mighty Army to reduce the ten Tribes to obedience, the Word of the Lord came to Shemaiah the man of God. saying, Speak unto Rehoboam and all the house of judah and Benjamin, Thus SAITH THE LORD, Ye shall not go up to fight against your brethren the children of Israel, return every man to his house; FOR THIS THING IS FROM ME; They harkened therefore to the word of the Lord and returned to depart, according to the word of the lord Lo here a Kingdom quite rend a way from the very house of David; yea, a new King and kingdom erected by the People, by Gods and his Prophets special direction, and approbation, for King Solomon's Idolatry. Who is such a stranger to the sacred Story, but hath ofttimes read, how God anointed jehu King, of purpose to extirpate and out off the whole house of K. Ahab his Lard for his and jezabels' Idolatry and bloodshed, in flaying the Prophets, and unjustly executing Naboth for his Vineyard? in performance whereof he slew his Sovereign King joram, Ahaziah King of judah, Queen jezabel, 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 spoke by his servant Elijah, 2 Kings c. 9 & 10. For which good service the Lord said unto jehu, Because THOU HAST DONE WELL in executing that which is right in mine eyes, and hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was IN MINE HEART, thy children of the 4. generation, shall sit on the Throne of Israel. This fact therefore of his thus specially commanded, approved, rewarded by God himself, must needs be just and lawful, nor Treason, nor Rebellion in jehu, unless the Opposites will charge God to be the author, approver, and rewarder of sin, of Treason.  
Neither will it serve their turns to Reply, 
Evasion, Reply.  that this was an extraordinary example, not to be imitated without such a special commission from heaven, as jehu had, and no man can now a days expect; 
b Deut. 13. throughout. c. 17. 1. to 8.  For since God hath frequently enjoined all gross incorrigible Idolaters (especially those who are nearest and dearest to, and most potent to seduce us) to be put to death, without any pity, or exception of Kings, whose examples are most pernicious, and apt to corrupt the whole Nation, as the precedents of the Idolatrous kings of Israel and judah abundantly evidence) if Kings become open professed Idolaters, though private persons may not murder them, and their families, as jehu; yet the representative body, or greater part of their Kingdoms, (as many Pious Divines affirm) may lawfully convent, depose, if not judge them capitally for it: and Gods putting zeal and courage into their hearts, or exciting them by his faithful Ministers, to such a proceeding, is a sufficient Divine Commission to satisfy Conscience, if no sinister private ends, but mere zeal of God's glory, and detestation of Idolatry be the only Motives to such their proceedings. 
c 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 jeroboam which he sinned, and which he made Israel sin, by his provocations wherewith he provoked the Lord God of Israel to anger; who going on after in jeroboams sins, 
d r Kings 16. 1, to, 20.  God threatens to out off all his house, and make it like the house of jeroboam; which was actually executed by Zimri, who slew his Sovereign King Elah, son to Baacha, With all the house of Baacha, and left not one that pissed against the wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends, according to the word of the Lord which he spoke 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 only out of ambition to usurp the Crown, without the peeples consent; whereupon all the people made Omri King and then going all to the Royal Palace, set it on fire, and burned Omri in it, both for his sins, Idolatries, and Treason which he wrought. We read expressly, 
e 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 conspiracy against him in jerusalem, and he fled to Lachish, but they sent to Lachish after him, slew him there; and they brought him upon horses, and buried him with his fathers in the City of judah. Then all the people of judah took Uzziah, who was 16 years old, and MADE HIM KING in the room of his father Amaziah, and he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord. So 
f 2 King. 15.  Zachariah, Shallum, Pekahiah, Pekah, four evil Kings of judah, successiuly acquiring the Crown by murder, and reigning evilly in God's fight, were all slain by God's just judgement on them, of one another, and Hoshea. In few words, God himself ever annexed this condition to the Kings of Israel and judah, that they should serve and fear him, obey him Laws, keep his Covenant, otherwise if they did wickedly for sake him, or commit idolatry, he would destroy, forsake, and cast them and their seed off from being 
* 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 God's Instruments, lawfully might, and sometimes did by God's special direction, remov depose, and sometimes put them even to death for their gross iniquities, and idolatries; and when they did it not, it was not (as many think) for want of lawful Sovereign Authority remaining in the whole State and people, (as I shall fully manifest in the Appendix) but out of a defect of zeal, out of a general complying with their Kings in 
g 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, ruin, both on their Kings, their Posterity, the whole Nation and Kingdoms of judah, and Israel, as the Sacred Story plentifully relates. All which considere, this object on proves not only false, but fatal 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 justify any disloyalty, sedition, Treason, Rebellion, or taking up of Arms against their lawful Princes, though never so evil, without the public consent and authority of the representative bodies or major part of their several Realms byassed with no sinister nor private respects, but aiming only at God's glory, and the public weal security, peace of Church and State. Thus much in answer to the principal Objections out of the Old Testament. 
Object 9   
The ninth and most material 
h Dr Ferne, Sect. 2. p 10, 11, 12 and 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 rely, is that noted Text in the new Testament, Rom. 13. 1, 2. Let every soul be subject unto the higher Powers, for there is no Power but of God; the Powers that be, are Ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God, and they that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation. From whence Dr. Fern concludes, 1. That the King is the Supreme or Highest Power here intended. 2. That all persons under the Highest Power are expressly forbidden to resist. 3. That in those days there was astanding and continual great Senate, which not long before had the Supreme Power in the Roman State, and might challenge more by the fundamentals of that State, than our Great Council will or can. But now the Emperor being supreme, as S. Peter calls him, or the Higher Power, as S. Paul here, there is no power of resistance left to any that are under him, by the Apostle. 4 Was there ever more cause of resistance then in those days? Were not the Kings than not only conceived to be inclined so, and so, but even actually to be enemies of Religion, had overthrown Laws and Liberties? And therefore if any should from the Apostles reasons that he gives against resistance in the 3, 4, 5, Verses. (for Rulers are not a terror to good works, but evil, and he is the Minister of God to thee for good) reply, That Rulers so long as they are not a terror to the good, but ministers for our good, are not to be resisted; the consideration of those times leaves no place for such exception, because the Powers then (which the Apostle forbids to resist) were nothing so, but subverters of that which was good and just. The Emperors did then indeed rule absolutely ●d arburarily, which should have according to the Principles of those days been astro●ger motive to resist. But how did they make themselves of Subjects such absolute Monarches? was it not by force and change of the Government? and was not the right of the People and Senate (according to the Principles of these days) good against them, with as much or more reason, than the right of the people of this Land is against the Succession of this Crown, descending by three Conquests? 5. The prohibition doth not only concern Christians, but all the people under those Emperors, and not only Religion was persecuted, but Liberties also lost, the people and Senate were then enslaved by Edicts and Laws then enforced on them by Nero and other Roman Emperors, yet notwithstanding the Apostle prohibits them to resist. By all which conscience will clearly see, it can have no warrant in Scripture for resistance, to wit, of the King, or his invading Forces, by way of necessary 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 Prince's persons or instruments, especially when they are bend to overthrow Religion, Laws, Liberties, the Republic, and turn professed Tyrants? And under correction, I conceive there is not the least syllable or shadow in this Text for any such inhibition, as is pretended. Not to insist upon the words, higher Powers odained of God, etc. which extend not unto Tyranny and illegal exorbitant oppressions, of which hereafter; I shall deducemy first Demonstrations to prove this negative Assertion, from the occasion inducing the Apostle to insert these objected Verses into this Epistle: 
i Sixsold Comment, on Rom. 13. Quest. 1. p. 576.  Dr Willet recites 7. Reasons of it, all fortifying my assertion; I shall mention only the three most probable, most received of them, and apply them as I go.  
First, the Roman Magistrates being then infidels, the new converted Christians among them, either did, or might take themselves to be wholly exempted from any subjection or obedience to them, reputing it a great incongruity, that Christians should owe any subjection to Pagans: To refute which error, the Apostle informs them, that though the Magistrates themselves were Ethnics, yet their Authority and Power was from God himself; therefore their profession of Christianity did rather oblige them to, then exempt them from subjection. Thus Haymo Soto, Calvin, Guather, Marlorat, Willet, Pareus, with others on this Text. Turn this Reason then into an Argument, and it will be but this Non sequitur: Christianity exempts not subjects from due obedience to just Pagan Magistrates, Ergo, Tyrants may not be resisted, neither aught the Parliament and their Forces to resist the King Cavallcers unjust assaults, as the case is formerly stated. Pretty Logic, and Divinity.  
2. The Gaulonites, as 
k Antiqu. jud. l. 18. c. 1. 2.  josephus records, with other Iews, being Abraham's seed, held it unlawful for them to yield any subjection or tribute to the Roman Emperors, or other Heathen Princes, reigning over them; whereupon they demanded this question of Christ himself, It is lawful to pay tribute to Caesar? Matth. 12. which error perehance spread itself into the Christian Church, by reason of Evangelicall Liberty, grounded on joh. 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 refel this mistake, the Apostle inserted these passages into this Epistle; Thus Soto, Calvin, Peter Martyr, Willet, and others. Whence nothing but this can be properly concluded, Neither the Prerogative of the ●ews, not Liberty of Christians exempts them from due subjection to lawful hea he ● Magistrates, because they are God's Ordinance, Ergo, No Subjects can with safe conscience defend themselves in any case against the unjust invasions of Tytannicall Princes or their Armies. A palpable Inconsequent.  
Thirdly, the Apostle having formerly t●ught, 
* 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 lawful for Christians to use the Magistrates defence against wrongs, nor for the Magistrate himself to take vengeance of evil 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 redress of their grievances from the Magistrates, who may lawfully punish Malefactors, Ergo, they may not resist with force, Tyrannical bloody Magistrates, or their wicked Instruments, when they actually make war upon them, to ruin, spoil, enslave them, is but a ridiculous Non sequitur. There is nothing therefore in the occasions of the Apostles words which gives the least colour, to disprove the lawfulness of such resistance, or of the Parliaments just defensive war.  
Secondly, this is manifest by the whole Scope of this Text, which in sum is only this, That Christians ought in conscience to (l) be subject to all lawful higher Powers, so far forth as they are God's Ordinance, God's Ministers, for their good, to the praise of the good, and punishment of evil doers, and notto resist them in the execution of their just Authority: Or Christianity exempts not Christians from obedience unto faithful Civil Magistrates: to infer from thence. Ergo it is unlawful for Christians in point of conscience to resist their Magistrates when they war upon them to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, slay, plunder them, is but a mere nonsense deduction.  
Thirdly, this appears most perspicuously from the motives to obedience, and reasons against resistance of Magistrates specified by the Apostle in the text itself.  
First, the higher Powers must be submitted to, and not resisted, because they are ordained of God, and are God's 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, 
m Isay 32. 1, 2. c. 49. 23. 1 Sa. 8. 20. Psa. 78. 72, 73, 74.  protect Religion, Laws, Liberties, the persons and estates of their people; They are not God's Ordinance, 
n Paraus, Willet, So●o, and others.  but the Devils, when they do quite contrary, 
o 1 Pet. 5. 8.  walking about like roaring Lions, seeking whom they may devour, as the Devil doth; According to that resolution of Bracton, and Fleta 
p 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 AUTEM DIABOLI dum declinat ad injuriam. Therefore they are so far forth only to be obeyed and not resisted, 
q Fleta, l. 1. 〈◊〉. 17.  as they are God's Ordinance, and lawful Magistrates, not as they are tyrants and the Devils Agents: we might have obeyed the evil spirits themselves whiles they continued good Angels; Ergo we must not resist them now they are turned Devils, is ill Logic, course Divinity, contrary to the 1 Pet. 5. 8, 9 jam. 4. 7.  
Secondly, because those who resist shall receive to themselves damnation, temporal or eternal, since they resist God's Ordinance, v. 2. But that subjects should be temporally and eternally damned, only for resisting tyrannical Magistrates or their Cavaliers, and that by authority from the Parliament, when they with armed violence most impiously set themselves to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberty, Propertie, and take away their lives, against all Laws of God and Man; for which they themselves incur both 
r 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.  temporal and eternal damnation, is such a Paradox, as is no ways warranted by, but directly opposite to the Scripture. Therefore it must be intended only of resisting lawful Authority, and just commands.  
3. They must be subjected to, not resisted, because Rulers are not a terror to good work, but to evil, v. 3. Now is this a reason why Subjects should not resist tyrannical oppressing Princes, Magistrates, or their Instruments, who are only a terror to good works, not to evil? who do 
s Psal. 140. 1. Io. 60. Prov 1. 16. Mich. 2. 13. c. 3. 23. 1●. 3.  evil and only evil continually, even with both hands? doubtless not. We must not resist Rulers who are a terror to good works but to evil; Ergo, we must not resist Rulers, who are a terror to good works, not to evil, as our Opposites conclude hence, is to argue poi●● blank against the Apostle; Ergo, we may and must resist them to our powers, lest we be 
t Rom. 1. 31. 32. 1 Tim. 5. 22 2 john 10. 11. Rev. 18 4.  partakers of their sins and punishments, and become authors of Religions and the Commonwealths subversion, is a more proper inference.  
Fourthly, the Apostle subjoins this argument against resistance. Wilt thou not then be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same, Vers. 3. That power is not to be resisted, which we need not be afraid of, and of whom we shall have praise whiles we do that which is good: But this only can be intended of a lawful power justly executed; not of Tyrants, or their ill Ministers bend with force of arms to ruin Religion, Laws, Liberties,; who only terrify, disgrace, discountenance those that are good; applaud, advance none but those who are evil, and as Micah writes, Chap. 3. 2. 3. Love the evil and hate the good, and pluck off their skin from off them, and their flesh from off their bones, etc. Therefore this inhibition of resistance extends only to lawful 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, Verse. 4. But is this true of Tyrants? of ungodly Magistrates bend to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, and destroy their people? True of 
u See Suetonius, Eutropius, Zonaras, Grimston and others in their lives.  Caligula, of Nero, who wished all the Romans had but one neck, that he might cut them all off at one stroke; and purposely fired Rome to consume it, beholding the flames as a most delightful spectacle? Are such the Ministers of God for our good here intended? or not rather, 
x See Seneca de Clem. l. 1. Hosea 13. 11.  the very Pests, Judgements, Scourges, Wolves, Cutthroats, destroyers of mankind, and direct Antinodes to all things that are good? If these be not within the Apostles definition, they are without his inhibition; which extends only to such, who are the Ministers of God to us for good: and implies a lawfulness of resisting those who are the Devils Ministers to us for evil, rather than Gods for good.  
Sixtly, He subjoins this further reason of obedience and not resistance, Vers. 5. But if thou dost that which is evil be afraid; for he beareth not the Sword in vain; for he is the Minister of God, a revenger, to execute wrath upon him that doth evil; which no ways suits with a Tyrant bend to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties: For he secures all evil men, especially those who are instrumental to advance his cruelty, and oppressions; gives liberty to all manner of wickednesses, Proclaims impunity to his ill instruments, knowing that of the Poet to be true; 
y Lucan. d. Bello Civili. l. 8. p. 141.  Libertas scelerum est quae Regna invisa tuetur, etc. He beareth the sword not only in vain, in reference to any good end, for the promoting of God's glory and the public good; but likewise draweth it forth, and useth it directly against both; 
z See Fox Acts and Monuments throughout.  And is so far from being a Minister of God, or revenger to execute wrath upon them that do evil, that he is the very Minister of the Devil, 
a Apolog. c. 5. and Seneca devita beaia, c. 24.  Tertullian, Nihil nisi grande aliquid bonum a Nerone damnatum. This reason than extends only to righteous Governors, in their execution of justice upon wicked malefactors wherein they must not be resisted; Not to bloody, graceless, lawless Tyrants and their instruments, who by the rule of contraries may and aught to be resisted in their cruelties, oppressions, impieties.  
Seventhly, the Apostle hereupon concludes, Vers. 5. Wherefore you must of necessity be subject not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. This conclusion as the word, Wherefore, demonstrates, being inferred from the premised reasons, extending only to extends to all civil Magistrates, as well inferior and subordinate, as superior, (and many stick not to strain it even to Ecclesiastical ones) So Origen, Ambrose, Hierome, Remigius, Theodulus, chrysostom, Theodoret, Primasius, Haymo, Rabanus Maurus, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Haymo, Aquinas, Anselm, Lyra, Bruno, Gorran, Hugo de Sancto Victore, Tostatus, Luther, Calvin, Erasmus, Melanchthon, Gualther, Musculus, Bucer, Hemingius, Ferus, Fayus, Soto, Alexander Alesius, Peter Martyr, Pareus, Beza, Piscator, 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 only in the due and legal execution of their offices: For if any inferior Officers illegally endeavour to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, and unrightly govern the people, they may lawfully be resisted by them: For example, if a Mayor, Justice of Peace, Constable or other officer; extravagating from the common course of Law and Justice; shall with force of arms in a riotous manner assault any private man, or the whole City or Village where he lives, to beat, wound, kill, plunder, dispossess the inhabitants of their houses, goods, franchises, or assault them on the highway side, to take away their purses; in these and such like cases, both in point of Law and conscience he may not only be forcibly resisted, but repulsed, apprehended, battered, if not lawfully slain by the people, and proceeded against as a delinquent: The reason is, because these illegal unjust actions, are not only besides, without their Commissions, but directly contrary to their offices, and the Laws, which never gave them authority to act such injustice: yet they are higher Powers ordained of God, within this Text, and no way to be resisted in the due execution of their Offices according to Law. If then these inferior Officers may be thus forcibly resisted, repulsed, notwithstanding this Text, in such cases as these; then by the self same reason Kings and Emperors may be thus resisted too; since the Text extends indifferently to them both. Let then the objectors take their choice; either affirm, that no inferior lawful Officers whatsoever, may be forcibly resisted, by the people, or repulsed, arraigned censured for their misdemeanour, by virtue of this Text; which would bring an absolute Tyranny, Anarchy and confusion presently into the world, and make every Constable as great a Tyrant, Monarch as the grand Emperor of the Turks; or else confess, that this Text condemns not such resistance, even of Kings and Princes, when they forcibly war upon their Subjects to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, and ruin the republic; since it makes no distinction at all between the one's power and the others; but equally enjoins subjection, prohibits resistance unto both; and that only in just administration of their several authorities, not in the arbitrary unjust prosecutions of their wills and lusts.  
Secondly, it follows, that the King's Soldiers, Cavaliers and Forces now raised against Law, and armed only with illegal Commissions void in Law, as I have proved; are none of the high powers ordained of God, nor lawful Rulers or Magistrates within the meaning of this Scripture; and so the forcible resisting of them, and of the King's illegal commands and designs executed by them, is no resistance of the higher powers here prohibited.  
Thirdly, that the Houses of Parliament being in truth the highest powers ordained of God in this Realm, and their just legal Ordinances, Votes, Forces, for the necessary defence of Laws, Liberties, Religion, against the King's ill Counsellors, and Malignant Popish Forces, neither may, nor ought in conscience to be resisted by the King himself, or any of his Subjects, Soldiers, under the peril of that damnation mentioned in this Chapter.  
For the second, 
Quest. 2.  Whether the Roman Emperor in Paul's time was the highest Sovereign power in the Roman State, or not? It is taken for granted by Doctor Ferne and other 
a Doctor Ferne, Appeal 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 Emperor. But this no doubt is a gross error, (which I have largely refuted in the Appendix, and therefore shall be the briefer hear) derived from some civil Lawyers; who out of Justinian. Digest. lib. 2. Tet. 2. and Instit. Tit. 2. falsely affirm, that Lege Regia; by the regal Law the Senate and people transferred all their Empire and power unto the Emperor. For first the Senate and people (as Albericus Gentilis well observes) did not by this Law give the Emperor all power and command to dispose of them, or the lands and revenues of the Empire, as he pleased; but only to govern them according to their Laws, as men; not to slay and alienate them as beasts. Thus reason dictates, so the words of the Law sound. 
c Alci. l. 3. de V. s. l. 35. & de P●●●.  Divines are deceived, Lawyers flatter, who persuade, that all things are lawful to Princes, and that their power is highest and free. It is ridiculous to affirm, that absolute power over the subjects belongs to Popes; which belongs not to the Emperors themselves over the Italians, from whom they derive it. Imagine therefore that the Emperor had a power never so free, yet it is not of dominion, but of administration. 
d 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 guardian is then reputed in stead of a Lord, cum tutelam administrat, non cum pupillum spoliat; when he rightly administers his tutelage, not when he spoils his pupil. So Gentilis. If then the Emperors had only a free legal administration, not an absolute dominion; granted them by the people, than this sovereign power still resided in the Senate and people, as Justinian Digest. lib. 1. Tit. 2. De Origine Juris, will sufficiently manifest: Secondly, 
f Commonweal, l. 2. c. 5. p. 221.  John Bodin a learned Civilian clearly proves: That the Roman Emperors were at the first; nothing else but Princes of the Commonweal, The SOVEREIGNTY NEVERTHELESS STILL RESTING IN THE PEOPLE, and THE SENATE: So that this Commonwealth was then to have been called a Principality; although that Seneca speaking in the person of Nero his Scholar, saith. I am the only man amongst living men, elect and chosen to be the Lieutenant of God upon earth: I am the arbitrator of life and death; I am able of my pleasure to dispose of the state and quality of every man. True it is, that he took upon him this Sovereign authority, by force wrested from the people and Senate of Rome, (therefore not freely given him by any Law) but IN RIGHT HE HAD IT NOT, the State being but a very principality WHEREIN THE PEOPLE HAD THE SOVEREIGNTY. In which case, THERE IS NO DOUBT but that IT IS LAWFUL to proceed against a Tyrant by way of justice, if so men may prevail against him: or else by way of fact, 
g 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 reign when this Epistle was written, the highest sovereign power was not in the Emperor, but in the Senate and people: who notwithstanding this objected Text, had no doubt a lawful Right, not only to resist Nero when he turned Tyrant with open force, but likewise judicially to arraign and condemn him even to death, as they did, for his public crimes. Now that the Sovereign highest Power remained in the Senate and people notwithstanding this Lex Regia, Marius Salamonius (an incomparable learned Roman Civilian) hath largely proved in his six Books De principatu (purposely written to refute the contrary common error) where he writes, First, that the Roman Emperors were created and constituted only by the Senate and people; and that the Creature should be superior to the Creator, the child to the parent, is absurd. Secondly, that the Emperors were but the Senates and people's public servants; therefore they were their Lords; and not inferior, but superior to their servants. Thirdly, that they were subordinate and inferior to the Laws made by the Senate and people; and bound by all their Laws, but such as the Senate and people did by special Acts exempt them from. Fourthly, that the people and Senate did by special Laws create, limit, 
h Marius Salamonius de Principatu, l. 6. p. 122. to 126.  enlarge or abridge their Emperor's power and jurisdiction, as they saw cause, giving sometimes more or less jurisdiction to one Emperor then another: which they could not justly do, were they not the highest Sovereign power. Finally he proves it by the very Lex Regia itself; which because rare and unknown to most, I shall here recite, to inform and reform our ignorant Court Doctors, Lawyers, with Salamonius his observations from it. Lex Regia, was not only one single Law: There was not one Law for all Emperors, but it was revived for every Emperor, yet not with the same conditions. The brass Table which yet hangeth in the Lateran Church, proves that the Royal Law was accustomed to be altered in every Prince's reign AT THE PLEASURE OF THE ROMAN PEOPLE; for it is part of the Royal Law of the Empire of Vespasian, that it should be altered: which had been void, if from the beginning of the Empire a perpetual Law had been made for all successors; the words of the Law are these.  
; Faedusve cum quibus volet facere, ita ut licuit Divo Augusto, Tiber. Julio Caesari Aug. Tyherioque Claudio, Julio Caesari Aug. Germanico.  
Vtique eum Senatum habere, relationem facere, remittere Senatus consulta, per relationem, discessionemque facere liceat, ut licuit Divo Augusto, Tiberio, Julio Caesari Augusto, Tiberio, Claudio Caesari Augusto Germanico.  
Vtique quum ex voluntate, auctoritateve, jussu, mandatione ejus, praesenteve eo Senatus habebitur, omnium rerum jus perinde habeatur, servetur, ac si●e lege Senatus edictus esset, habereturque.  
Vtique Coss. Magistratus potestatem, imperium, curationemve cuivis rei petenti Senatui populoque Romano commendaverit, quibusve suff●agationem suam dederit, promiserit, eorum Comitiis quibusque extra ordinem, ratio habeatur.  
Vtique ei fines pomaerii proffer, procurare, cume Rep. censebit esse, liceat; uti licuit Tiberio, Claudio Caesari, Augusto Germanico.  
Vtique quaecunque ex usu Reip. majestate divinar: humanar: publicar: privatarumque rerum esse censebit, ea agere, facere jus, potestasque sit, ita uti Divo Aug. Tyberioque, Julio Caesari Aug. Tyberioque Claudio Aug. Germanico fuit.  
Vtique quibus legibus, Plebisve scitis scriptum fuit, ne Divus Augustus Tyberiusve, Jul. Caes. Aug. Tyberiusve, Claudius Caes. Aug. Germanicus tenerentur; his Legibus Plebisque scitis Imp. Aug. Vespatianus solutus sit; quaeque ex quaque Lege, Rogatione Divum Aug. Tyberiumve, jul. Caesarem Aug. Tyberiumve, Claudium Caes. Aug. Germanicum facere oportuerat, ea omnia Imperatori Caesari Vespatiano Aug. facere liceat.  
Vtique quae ante hanc legem rogatam, acta, gesta, decreta, imperata, ab Imp. Caesare Vespatiano Augusto, jussù, mandatuve ejus a quoque sunt, ea perinde justa rata sint, ac si populi plebisve jussù acta essent. Sanctio. Si quis hujusce legis ergo adversus leges, rogationes, plebisve scita, senatusue consulta fecit, feceritve, sive quod cum ex lege, rogatione, plebisve scito, senatusve consulto facere oportebit, non fecerit, hujus legis ergo, id ei ne fraudi esto, neve quid ob eam rem populo dari debeto, neve de ea re cui, actioneve judicato esto, neve quis de ea re apud eum agi sinito.  
This Law first shows, that there was not one royal Law made for all Emperors, but that for every several Emperor several Laws were necessary, containing the conditions whereupon the Principality was collated by the Roman people: For to Vespasian, it appears power was granted, of enlarging or settling the bounds, as it was granted to Germanicus, but not to other Princes. And in the last Chapter but one, which saith: And by those things which by any Law, etc. it is lawful to do; a larger power is given to Vespasian then to the forenamed Emperors; and that they ought to do some things, which Vespasian ought not to do by Law. Likewise by these words; Vtique quibus legibus, etc. solutus sit: it appears that Vespasian was not freed from all Laws, nor yet the Emperor before him. Likewise out of the Chapter where it saith, Ex usu Reip. Majestate, etc. it is evident that not an absolute free administration of things was committed to the Emperors, but only such as was useful, that is, which should be for the profit and honour of the republic: whence is inferred, that those things which were not for the benefit and honour of the Commonweal, Emperors had no right nor power to do. And in the last Chapter is perspicuously set down THAT SUPERIOR POWER OF THE PEOPLE, GREATER THAN THE PRINCIPALITY ITSELF. How then doth Ulpian say, the Prince is loosed from Laws? he saith not from all Laws: verily that he was exempt from many is no doubt, etc. (yet it was by a special 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 Paul's time, not the Emperor; who even at this day (as 
i Commonweal l. 2 c. 5.  Bodin proves) is inferior to the German States, who are the Sovereign power: when King Henry the fourth of France, Anno 1600. used this speech to the Duke of Savoy; 
k General History of France, p. 965.  If the King of France would be ambitious of any thing greater than his Crown, it might be an Empire, but not in the estate that it is now, the title of Empire being little more than 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 & Imperatorem sic, 
l 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, etc.  
To which I answer, 
Answ.  that these words only prove the Emperor in the Roman State to be the highest Officer and Magistrate under God, of any one particular person; not that he was the Sovereign highest power above the Senate and people collectively considered: And the occasion of these words will discover the Author's intention to be no other: which was this. The Christians in that age were persecuted and put to death by Scapula Precedent of Carthage, to whom 
m Rhenani Annot. Ibid.  Tertullian writes this Book, because they refused to adore the Emperor for a God, to swear by his Genius, and to observe his solemnities and triumphs in an ethnical manner; as is evident by the words preceding this passage: Sic & circa Majestatem Imperatoris infamamur, etc. and by sundry notable passages in his Apologeticus. In answer to which accusation Tertullian reasons in the Christians behalf; that though they adored not the Emperor as a God; yet they reverenced him as a man next under God; as one only less than God; as one greater than all others, whiles less only than the true God, and greater than the Idol Gods themselves, who were in the Emperor's power, etc. Here was no other thing in question; but whether the Emperor were to be adored as God? not, whether he or the Roman Senate and people were the greatest highest Sovereign power? And the answer being, that he was but a man next under God, above any other particular officer in the Roman State; is no proof at all, that he was paramount the whole Senate and people collectively considered, or of greater Sovereign power than they; which the premises clearly disprove. Add; that this Father in his Apology thus censures the Pagan Romans for their gross flattery of their Emperors whom they feared more than their Gods, appliable to our present times; Siquidem majore formidine & callidiore timiditate Caesarem observatis, quam ipsum de Olympo Jovem, etc. adeo & in isto irreligiosi erga dees vestros deprehendimini, cum plus timoris, humano Domino dicatis; citius denique apud vos per omnes Deos, quam per unum genium Caesaris pejeratur. Then he adds, Interest hominis Deo cedere; satis habeat appellari Imperator: grande & hoc nomen est, quod a Deo tradetur: negat illum imperatorem qui deum dicit; nisi homo sit, non est imperator. Hominem se esse etiam triumphans in illo sublimissimo curru admonetur. Suggeritur enim ci a tergo, Respice post te; hominem memento te. Etiam hoc magis gaudet tanta se gloria coruscare, ut illi admonitio conditionis suae sit necessaria. Major est qui revocatur ne se deum existimet. Augustus' imperii formator, ne Dominum quidem dici se volebat: et hoc enim Dei est cognomen. Dicam plane Imperatorem Dominum, sed more communi, sed quando non cogor, ut Dominum Dei vice dicam. Concluding thus: Nullum bonum sub exceptione personarum administramus, etc. 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, etc. From which it is evident, that the Christians did not deify nor flatter their Emperors more than was meet, and deemed they might not resist them only in such cases where they might resist no others, and so by consequence lawfully resist them, where it was lawful for them to resist other private men who did injuriously assault them.  
If then the Roman Emperors were not the highest Sovereign power in the Roman State when Paul writ this Epistle, but the Roman Senate and State, as I have cleared: and if the Parliament, not the King, be the supremest Sovereign power in our Realm, as I have abundantly manifested; then this objected Text (so much insisted on by our opposites) could no ways extend to the Roman Senate, State, or our English Parliament, who are the very higher powers themselves, and proves most fatal and destructive to their cause of any other, even by their own Argument, which I shall thus doubly discharge upon them.  
First, that power which is the highest and most sovereign Authority in any State or kingdom by the Apostles and our Antagonists own doctrine, even in point of conscience, neither may, nor ought in what case soever (say our opposites) to be forcibly resisted, either in their persons, ordinances, commands, instruments, offices, or Armed Soldiers, by any inferior powers, persons or subjects whatsoever, especially when their proceedings are just and legal, under pain of temporal and eternal condemnation. But the Senate among the Romans, not the Emperor; and the Parliament in England, not the King, really were and are the higher Powers and most sovereign Authority. Therefore by the Apostles own Doctrine even in point of conscience, they neither may nor aught to be disobeyed or forcibly resisted in any case whatsoever, either in their Persons, Ordinances, Commands, Instruments, Officers, or Armed Soldiers, by the King himself, his Counsellors, Armies, Cavaliers, or by any inferior powers, persons, or Subjects whatsoever, especially when their proceedings are just and legal, (as hitherto they have been) under pain of temporal and eternal condemnation. I hope the Doctor and his Camerads will now beshrew themselves that ever they meddled with this Text, and made such a halter to strangle their own treacherous cause, and those who have taken up arms in its defence.  
Secondly, that Power which is simply highest and supreme in any State, may lawfully with good conscience take up Arms to resist or suppress any other power, that shall take up arms to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, the Republic, or the just Rights and Privileges of the Subject, or of this higher power. This is our opposites own argumentation. Therefore the Parliament being in verity the highest supreme Power in our State, may lawfully with good conscience take up Arms to resist or suppress his Majesty's Malignant, Popish Forces, or any other power which already hath, or hereafter shall be raised to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, the Republic, just Rights and Privileges of Parliament, or the Subjects; and every man with safe conscience may cheerfully serve in such a war, upon the Parliaments encouragement or command, without guilt of treason, or rebellion either in Law or Conscience.  
For the third Question; 
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 compass of this Text; as they are such, and may be resisted in their Tyranny and oppressions notwithstanding this inhibition; I shall not repeat, but only fortify this Position with some new reasons and authorities.  
First then, that which is not the ordinance of God, but rather of the Devil, and the mere sin and enormity of the Governor himself, not of the Government, is not within the intention of this Text, and may lawfully be resisted without any violation of it. But Tyrants and unjust oppressing Magistrates as they are such, are 
n See Mich. 3. 1. to 5. Isay 3. 4, 5. Zeph. 3, 3. Ezech. 45. 8, 9  not God's ordinance, but rather the Devils, and their Tyranny and oppression is only the sin and enormity of the Governors themselves, not of the government; A truth granted by all men: Therefore they are not within the compass of this Text, and may lawfully be resisted without any violation of it.  
Secondly, that which is no point of the Magistrates lawful power ordained of God, but diametrally repugnant to it, cannot be within the meaning of this Text, and may lawfully be resisted; but the tyranny, oppression, rapine, and violence of lawless Kings and Magistrates are such, as all must and do acknowledge. Ergo, they are not within the verge and compass of this Text, and may lawfully be resisted.  
Thirdly, all powers intended in the Text, are not only ordained, but ordered of God, that is, 
o 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 Laws of justice and honesty, within which they must contain themselves, else they exorbitate from God's ordinance when they pass beyond these limits, and become none of Gods; This the Greek 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 terror to good works, but to evil, etc. they are Gods Ministers attending continually on this very thing. Now the Tyranny and oppression of Kings and other Rulers, are mere exorbitances, arbitrary illegal actions, exceeding the bounds of justice and honesty prescribed by the Laws of God and men. Therefore not within the limits of this Text, and resistible.  
Fourthly, it is generally accorded by all Commentators, that though the lawful power of Princes or other Magistrates degenerating unto Tyrants, be of God, and not to be resisted; yet the Tyranny itself, and abuse of this power is of Satan, not of God, and the vice of the persons only, not of the Power itself; 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 expressly Explanatio Artic. 41. Tom. 1. f. 82. 83. where he complains, that many Tyrants, cheat, steal, rob, slay, plunder, and attempt any thing against their subjects to oppress them; assuming a pretext and veil of their malice from this Text of Paul. Yea Dominicus Soto, Cajetan, Pererius, and other Popish commentators on this place observe; that Paul adds this Epithet, of higher or excelling powers (omitted by him in other parallel Texts) of purpose to exclude Tyrants, who are no excelling Lords, nor lawful Powers; reigning oft times by God's permission for the people's punishment; not by his ordination for their good: and blame Bueer for saying, that Tyrant's power is from God, as if he were this author of sin and Tyranny.  
This then fully answers that absurd error of Doctor 
p Sect. 2.  Ferne, wherein all his force is placed: That the Power in Paul's days which he here prohibits to resist, were subverters of that which was good; and the Roman Emperors Tyrants: where he sottishly confounds the tyranny, lusts, and vices of the Emperor's persons, which were detestable, with their power itself, which was good and commendable; as if the Imperial power itself was ill, because Nero was ill, and was 
q Grimston, Suetenius, Eutropius, Zonaras, Volaterranus, Speed and others in his life.  therefore justly condemned to death by the Roman Senate, as a public enemy to the Roman State, though they approved and continued his just Imperial principality, which lasted in succession for many hundred years after his censure, death. To which I shall only add; that though Nero himself were a Tyrant, yet the Roman Senate, and all their Inferior Offices were not Tyrants; many of them, no doubt, being just and upright Magistrates. The Precept therefore being thus in the general, and the plural number, Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers; nor personal; let them be subject to Nero; or special, to the Roman Emperor (whom Paul no doubt would have 
r 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 fond dream;) we may safely conclude, that the Apostle intended it only of lawful powers and Magistrates, not of Nero or other Tyrants: And writ this to Christians only, to whom he dedicates this Epistle, witness Ch. 1. V. 7. To all that be at Rome beloved of God, called to be Saints, etc. not to Pagan Romans, as the Doctor dreams, to whom he writes not; much less to the Roman Senate, who were then the sovereign power; and therefore could be subject to no other but themselves. Precepts of obedience to children and Servants, concern not parents and masters as such, in point of submission or obedience.  
For the fourth Quere: 
Quest. 4.  Whether Kings and Kingdoms be God's ordinance; or an institution Jure divino, not a humane ordinance, instituted Jure humano? or, how far divine or humane? Is a necessary considerable question grounded on this Text, and very needful to be discussed to clear the present controversy.  
Some of our opposites are so intoxicated with the divinity of Monarchy, as they confidently 
s Doctor Ferne, Sect. 2. 3 Appeal to the Conscience, p. 11. ●0 15. The necessity of subjection. Christus Dei, p. 11. 12. with others.  determine; hat the efficient cause of royal Monarchical power is only God; not the people. That Kings receive no power or regal Authority from the people, but from God alone; That the power of Kings is not a humane, but a divine power, of which God only is the efficient cause. That the people do not make the King, but God properly and absolutely; this power, right and authority he hath from God. That the King hath no dominion and power from his Subjects by way of trust, but from God, from whom he hath his kingdom and power, so that by Idolatry and oppression, he breaks not the trust reposed in him by his Subjects, because the people HAVE COMMITTED NOTHING TO HIS CHARGE, but God only, etc. For proof whereof they produce Prov. 8. 15. By me King's reign, Dan. 2. 21. God removeth Kings and setteth up Kings, Dan. 4. 17. 25. The most high ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will; and setteth up over it the basest of men, with Hos. 13. 11. 1 Sam. 10. 1. Jer. 27. 5, 6, 7. Isay 45. 1, 2. and other Texts.  
To answer this question distinctly, 
Answ.  and dissipate these gross erroneous Paradoxes; we must distinguish:  
First, between, Government itself in general, and kingly or other kinds of government, in special, (as our opposites distinguish between, a Sabbath, and the Sabbath; the first they say is moral and of divine institution, the later not.)  
Secondly, between the Regal power of Kings, the persons invested with this power, the manner of obtaining, and the administration of their power.  
Thirdly, of God's manner of instituting and ordaining things; which is twofold, immediately by himself, mediately by others. And these institutions of both kinds are either universal, extending to all places, Nations; or particular, concerning some Countries, and Nations only, and not others; Perpetual for ever, or temporal only for some set time: Immutable, not capable of the least alteration; or mutable, and that either at the pleasure of God only; or at the will of men, when they shall see just cause, either in part or in whole.  
Fourthly, in what several senses things may be said to be of God. First, in respect of his own immediate institution. Secondly, of his general or special commands. Thirdly, of his general or special disposing providence, without any special institution or command. Fourthly, of his approbation of, assent unto, and blessing on the mere institutions of men. Fiftly, of his permission only.  
To apply these distinctions to the present occasion.  
First, it is clear, that power and government in general are Gods own institution; who as he hath appointed (in the great fabric of the world a 
t Gen. 1. 16. 18. 28. 29 30. Jer. 31. 35, 36. Psal. 136. 8, 9  certain constant form of government and subordination of one creature to another) so he hath for the good of mankind, appointed that there should be some form of government or other among men in the world; which in respect of families he hath specially and universally decreed, 
u 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 Commonweals, or Nations, he hath left it arbitrary and indefinite, leaving every Nation and Country free liberty to elect such a public politic form of government, as themselves should judge most expedient for their public good, and that mutable (since all humane things are so) as they should see just occasion, not prescribing any sempiternal, immutable form of government to any particular Nations, Regions, much less to all the world.  
Secondly, government in general being thus of God, but the kinds of it thus left arbitrary to men's institution and free election; the particular governments instituted by any Nation for the better regulating of their lives, the preservation of humane society, and advancement of God's glory, may be truly said in some sense to be of God, though instituted, invented by men. Not because God himself did immediately ordain or prescribe them by special command to all, or any one people: or because God himself did immediately ordain or prescribe them by special command to this, all, or any one people: but because he by his general or special providence did direct this Nation to make choice of such a government, or gave them wisdom to invent and settle it, as most commodious for their republic, till they should see cause to alter it: or because he blessed and approved it, when invented and received by them.  
Thirdly, Kingly powers, Kingdoms, Kings (the things now in question) are, and may be said to be of God, and ordained of God, in no other manner or sense, than all other particular Governments or Magistrates are. For this Text of the Romans, speaking only of the higher powers, the powers that are, and of Rulers; as doth that place of Titus 3. 1. And the Text of Prov. 8. 15, 16. (so much relied on by the objectors) extending as well to all subordinate Rulers as Kings; witness the subsequent words, By me King's reign, and Princes decree justice: by me Princes rule AND NOBLES, yea ALL THE JUDGES OF THE EARTH; (that is, all Magistrates whatsoever) it cannot but be yielded; that all and every lawful kind of government, all lawful Rulers and Magistrates of what fort soever are of God's ordination, and his ordinance, as far forth as Monarchies are; and what is truly affirmable of the one, is of the other too.  
These generals thus premised as indubitable; I say first of all: That Monarchy or regal power is not of God, nor yet God's ordinance by way of immediate divine institution or special command from Gods own free motion, as our opposites affirm it.  
For first, God himself never immediately instituted a royal Monarchical government in any Nation whatsoever, no not among his own people; whose government was at first 
y Josepbus Antiq. Jud. l. 4. c. 8. Carolus Sigonius de Repub. Hecraeorum. l. 7. c. 5.  Paternal and patriarchical; next Aristocratical; then Regal; not by God's immediate institution and voluntary designation; but by the people's earnest importunity, contrary to the good liking of God and Samuel, as is evident by 1 Sam. c. 8, and 9, and 10, and 11. Hos. 8. 4. and the Appendix.  
Secondly, 
z Aristot. Polyt. l. 3. & 5. Polib. Hist. l. 6. Just. in Hist. l. 1. Cassanaeus Catalogue. 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 original crection of all Monarechies was either by the people's free consent and ordination; or by Tyranny and usurpation; or be conqest; none by divine institution or special command from God: And it must needs be so, because most 
a Gen. 14. 1 Sam. 8. 5. Seldens Titles of Honour, part 1. c. 1. 2. See the Appendix.  kingdoms were primitively erected, either among Pagan Nations and States, who knew not God nor his Word, or among Christian States since special commands and Revelations from heaven ceased: which if our opposites deny; I shall desire them to instance in any one Monarchy in the world, instituted immediately by God himself, or by special command from his own free motion: Till this be done, all their asseverations will be accounted fabulous.  
Thirdly, if Regal power be God's ordinance by way of divine immediate institution and command; then this institution of Regal Monarchy, with the several Prerogatives, and boundaries of it, would appear in some Text of Scripture, and this government would be specially and perpetually prescribed either to all, or some particular Nations by God himself. But this institution, with the general Prerogatives and bounds of Regal Authority, are no where extant in Scripture, neither this form of government therein prescribed, but left arbitrary to all or any Nation in particular, for aught any man can demonstrate. Those Texts which concern the Kings of the Israelites in point of sovereignty, and Prerogative, being judicial only, and peculiar to that Nation, nor moral, or extending unto others. Therefore it is not God's ordinance by way of divine immediate institution, or command.  
Fourthly, if it were of divine ordination in this sense; then the Regal power and authority of all Kings and Monarches in the world should be equal, yea the very same; and there should be no different kind of Kings; as the divine authority of all Ministers (being of Gods own institution by one and the same commission) is one and the same: But the regal power and jurisdiction of all Kings and Monarchies in the world is not equal nor the same; for some have far greater authority than others; there are many different sorts of Kings in the world, some only annual, others for life, others hereditary, others at will, deposible at the people's pleasures when ever they offended, (Such were the Kings of the 
b Procop. Vand. l. 1.  Vandals in afric, of the 
c Ammon. l. 2. c. 2. l. 4. c. 25. Hugo Grotius de Jure Belli. l. 1. c. 3. c. 58. 72.  Goths in Spain; cum ipsos deponerent populi quoties displicuissent: such the Kings of the Heruli (Procopius, Gothicorum) Of the Lombard's, Paulus Warnafredi, l. 4. & 6. Of the Burgundians, Ammianus, 11. lib. 28. Of the Moldavians, Laonichus Chalcocandylas; the King of Agadis among the Africans, Joannis Leo, lib. 7. Of the Quadi and Jazyges (in excerptis Dionis) with sundry others hereafter mentioned.) Some elective, others successive, some conditional, others absolute, as I have plentifully mentioned in the Appendix. Therefore they are not of divine ordination in the objectors sense.  
Fiftly, If Kings were of divine ordination in this sense, than their kingdoms and people upon their Elections, Institutions and Coronations could not justly prescribe any conditions, oaths or covenants to them, upon promise of performance whereof they only accept of them to be their Kings, refusing else to admit them to reign over them; and such conditions, oaths, covenants, would be mere nullities, since men have no power at all to detract from Gods own divine institutions, or to annex any conditions or restrictions to them. But our Antagonists themselves dare not aver, that Kingdoms and Nations upon their King's Coronations, Institutions and elections may not lawfully prescribe conditions, oaths, and limitations to them, upon promise of performance whereof they only submitted to them as their Sovereigns, it being the received practice of our own, of all or most other Kingdoms whatsoever, 
e 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 
f 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 lawful royal Authority, but that which the Laws and customs of their Kingdoms allot them, and that the Law only makes them Kings, from which if they exorbitate they become Tyrants and cease to be Kings. Their Royal authority therefore is of humane institution properly, not Divine; from their people, who both elect, constitute them Kings, and give them all their regal Authority by humane Laws enacted, not from God as the only efficient cause.  
Seventhly, All Kingdoms, Monarchies, Policies, are mutable and variable in themselves, while they continue such; yea, temporary and alterable into other forms of Government by public consent, if there be just cause; without any immediate command or alteration made by God himself, or his divine authority: There being no positive Law of God confining any Nation, (whose humane earthly condition is still variable) to a Monarchical or any other constant form of government only, much less for perpetuity without variation. Therefore, they are not of divine institution in this sense.  
Eightly, St. Peter expressly defines Kings and Monarchies, in respect of their institution, to be humane creatures, or institutions, 1 Pet. 2. 13. Submit yourselves to every ORDINANCE OF MAN for the Lords sake; whether it be to the King, as supreme, etc. 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 Antagonist will yield, that other forms of Government, whether Aristocratical, oligarchical, democratical, or mixed of all three, are not absolutely and immediately of divine institution; nor yet Dukes, Principalities, with other inferior Rulers, though the Apostle in this Text makes them all equally God's Ordinance, and Divine. Therefore Monarchy, Kings and Kingdoms are not so.  
Tenthly, The very Text itself seems to intimate, that Royalties and higher powers are not of God, by way of original or immediate institution, or command: for the Apostle saith not; that all powers whatsoever were originally instituted and ordained by God himself; but, There is no power but of God; The powers that be, are (not were at first) ordained (or rather, ordered) of God: that is; where powers and Governments are once erected by men, through God's general or special providence, there God approves and order them for the good of men.  
2. If Monarchies, and Kings themselves be not of divine institution, and God's ordinance in the former sense, as is most apparent: & Aristotle, Plato, all Politicians grant; Then they are so only in some other sense, in what I shall truly inform you.  
First, They are of God, and his Ordinance, by way of imitation, as derived from Gods own form of Government, which is Monarchical; Whence he is called, 
g Psal. 86. 10 Deut. 32. 39 Isa. 37. 16. c. 44 6. 1. Cor. 8 4. Ephes. 4. 6.  The only God, God alone, 
h 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 
i Deut. 17. 14. 15, 16. 1 Sam. 8. 22. 2 Sam. 7. 12.  approves and allows this kind of Government where it is received, as well as other forms.  
Thirdly, by way of direction, he gives divers general 
k 2 Sam. 23. 3, 4. 1 King 11 11. 38 2 Chro. 9, 8. Prov. 31. 4  rules and directions to Kings (and to other Rulers and Magistrates also as well as them) in his sacred word how they ought to demean themselves, towards him and their Subjects; and likewise 
l 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2. 1 Pet 2. 13, 14. Rom. 13. 1 to 7. 'tis 3. 1.  to Subjects, how they should carry themselves towards their Kings; and all other Rulers and Governors temporal or spiritual: in which sense they may be properly said, to be ordered and ordained too, of God.  
Fourthly, By way of special providence and incitation; God excites and moves some people to make choice of Kings, and Monarchical forms of Government, rather than others; and to elect one man or family to that dignity rather than others, yea his providence mightily rules and sways in the changes, the elections, actions, counsels, affairs of Monarchies, Kingdoms, Kings, States, to order them for his own glory, the Kings, the Subjects good or ill, in ways of Justice or Mercy; as is evident by Dan. 2. 21. c. 4. 17. 25. Hos. 13. 11. Jer. 27. 5, 6, 7. Isa. 45. 1, 2, 3. c. 10. 5. to 20. Psal. 110. 5. Psal. 113. 7, 8. Job 12. 18. to 25. Dan. 5. 26. 28. The genuine drift of all these Texts.  
Fifthly, Kings may be said to be of God and his Ordinance, because they, (and so all other Rulers, Judges, Magistrates as well as they, in respect of their representation and the true end of Government) are said to be Gods; to be God's Ministers and Vicegerents; to sit upon God's Throne, and aught to reign, to judge for God, and to rule God's people according to God's Word, with such justice, equity, integrity as God himself would Govern them. Exod. 22. 28. 2 Chron. 9 8. Rom. 13. 4, 5. 2 Sam. 23. 3. Psal. 78. 72, 73, 74 2 Sam. 5. 2. Prov. 8. 15, 18. Psal. 82. 1. 1 Cor. 8. 5. Isa. 32. 1. c. 9 7. c. 16. 5. Deut. 1. 17.  
Sixthly, Ill Kings, and Tyrants, may be said to be of God, by way of permission, and of Ordination too, in reference to the people's punishment, Job 34. 30. Hos. 13. 11. 1 Sam. 8. 18. In these regards (common to all other Governors and lawful Governments, as well as Kings and Monarchies) Kings and Kingly Authority, are and may be said to be of God, and God's Ordinance; yet not immediately, or properly in the first acception, here refuted, but so as that still they are really the institutions and ordinances of men, of humane, not divine right, and authority.  
As for the objected Scriptures to prove Kings jure Divino, 
Object.  as Prov. 8. 15. By me Kings Reign, etc. 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 speaks only of the promotion or Reign of Kings; 
m 2 Chro. 9 8. Isa. 32. 2 c. 16. 5.  not of the erections and power of Monarchies; and so do Daniel 2. 21. c. 4. 17. 25. c. 5. 26. 28. with the other objected Scriptures.  
Secondly, If it be meant of the rule of Kings; then true it is, that good Kings Reign by God's direction, according to his word, executing justice, and judgement, as he enjoins them; But than it is not true of wicked Kings and Tyrants, who though they Reign by God's Providence or permission, yet they rule not by his word and will as he prescribes them.  
Thirdly, If it be meant of the means and manner of Kings coming to their Kingdoms, as I conceive it is, and the Texts of Daniel persuade:  
True it is: first, That some Kings Reigned and came to the Crown by God's immediate nomination and designation, as Saul, David, Solomon, Jeroboam, Jehu, and Hazael did: But that all, or most did heretofore, or now do so, especially in Pagan Kingdoms, is a notorious falsehood.  
Secondly, it is true, That most lawful Kings in hereditary or elective Kingdoms, come to their Crowns, and Reign; though not by God's immediate nomination, yet by his ordinary or special providence, (though it be untrue of Usurpers, and Tyrants who come to Reign by Treason, Murder, or other unlawful means; and so by God's 
l See Doctor Willet, Paraeus, and others on Rom. 13.  permission only, rather than his providence: and then the sense of the place is but this; That Kings receive their Crowns, and Reign by God's general, or more special providence: Which I think is the full and proper sense of the place. In this sense C. Plinius Secundus a heathen in his admirable Panegyrio to the Emperor Trajan, a Pagan, Rhetorizeth thus of him: Quid enim praestabilius est, aut pulchrius munus Deorum, quam castus & sanctus & Diis simillimus Princeps? Ac si adhuc dubium fuisset 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, etc. Which 
* Apologeticus.  Tertullian thus seconds, speaking even of the Roman Pagan Emperors. Ind est Imperator, unde & homo antequam Imperator; inde Potestas ei, unde & spiritus: Per Deum tantus est: So Irenaeus, Cujus jussu homines nascuntur, hujus jussu & Reges constituuntur. And Diodorus Siculus of the Egyptians; Existimant non SINE DIVINA QUADAM PROVIDENTIA, pervenisse ad summam de omnibus Potestatem: So the 
m Porphyr.  Esses, hold this opinion, Non obtingit cuiquam Imperium sine Dei cura speciali: So 
n Apud Cassiodorwn.  Vitigis, Omnis provectus, maxim Regius, ad Divinitatis munera referendus est: and Clemens 
o 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. confirms with other Authorities; all concurring in this, That Kings and Emperors are such only by the selfsame PROVIDENCE OF GOD, by which they were men before they were Emperors; which gives them no greater Prerogative in respect of irresistibility in unjust exorbitant actions, than their being men, by the selfsame providence of God, gave them before they were Emperors, as Tertullia's words most clearly prove.  
But what privilege this alone should yield to Kings, more than to any other Magistrates, Men or Beasts, for my part I cannot yet discern. For doth not the same Text say of Nobles, Princes, Judges, as well as of Kings, Prov. 8. 15, 16. By me Princes (put as contradistinct to Kings) decree justice; By me Prince's Rule AND NOBLES, YEA ALL JUDGES OF THE EARTH? Doth not David say of all kind of Promotions whatsoever, Psal. 113. 7, 8. The Lord raiseth the poor out of the dust, and lifeteth the needy out of the dunghill; that he may set him with Princes, even with the Princes of his people? And Psal. 75. 5, 6. Promotion cometh neither from the East, nor from the South; but God is the Judge; he putteth down one and setteth up another? Nay, doth not Christ inform us 
p Mat. 10. 29 30. Luk. 12. 6, 7  That the very hairs of our head are all numbered? That two sparrows are sold for a farthing, and yet one of them shall not fall on the ground without our Father's providence? Yea doth not every man, yea every Bird, Beast, Fish, Raven, and living creature whatsoever, (as the Scripture 
q Psal. 105. 27. to 32. Psal. 145. 14, 15, 16. Psal. 17. 27, 28.  expressly resolves) receive, enjoy their Lives, Honours, Offices, Estates, food, raiment, being, preservation, by God's general and special providence, as well as Kings their Crowns, Honours, Lives, Estates?  
And is not the providence, yea are not the very 
o Psa. 307. Psal 92. 11, 12. Act. 12. 7. to 18. Heb. 1. 14.  Angels of God, who are all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister to them who shall be heirs of salvation, as vigilant over every pious Christian (though never so mean & despicable) as over the greatest Monarch in the world? If so, as all men must necessarily acknowledge (there being 
p Rom. 2. 1. Acts 10 34. 1 Pet 1. 17. Deut. ●0 17. job 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 than the poor, for they are all the work of his hands) than kings reigning by the Providence of God, can of itself no more exempt them from resistance, censures, deprivations, for their detestable public crimes, than it exempts any other Nobles, Princes, judges, Magistrates, Christians, or the meanest subjects whatsoever; which I shall make good by one more unanswerable demonstration. There is not one of our Antagonists but will acknowledge, that Priests under the Law, and all Ministers under the Gospel, if rightly qualified, are not made only such by God's special Providence, but likewise by Divine institution from God himself; Nay, Tollet, 
q 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 Romans, make a difference between the civil and Ecclesiastical Regiment and Powers: for the first (say they) is so from God, that yet the institution thereof may be devised and altered by man, and therefore Peter calls it, the Ordinance of man; but the spiritual Power is immediatelly instituted by God, and no ways alterable or determinable by man: And therefore the Apostle saith Ephes. 4. 11. He gave some to be Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, etc. So that by their determination, Ministers are more God's Ordinance, and more jure Divino, than Kings; yea but few years since they all professed themselves to be as much, if not more, Gods anointed, than Kings; and some of our 
* Archbishop Laud and Neel, in the High Commission and Starchamber.  Archest Prelates made public challenges in the open Court, That if they could not prove their Lordly Episcopacy to be jure Divino, they would presently burn their Rochets, and lay down their Bishoprics; though they never made good their promises: & to doubt, whether the Pope and his supreme Authority be iure Divino by Christ's own immediate institution, deserves a faggot in the Roman Church: Yet notwithstanding all this Divine Right and institution, our Opposites will grant, That if Popes, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Ministers preach false Heretical doctrines, oppress, wound, slay, rob, plunder the people committed by God to their cares; or attempt with force to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties; or commit any capital offences, they may not only with safe conscience be resisted, repulsed by their people, but likewise apprehended, arraigned, deprived, condemned, executed, by Lay judges, as infinite examples in our Histories manifest, and the example of Abiathar the High Priest, 1 Kings 2. 26, 27 And if so, then why not Kings as well as they, or other temporal Magistrates, notwithstanding any of the objected Texts? Either therefore our Opposites must grant all Bishops, Priests, Ministers, yea, all other Magistrates whatsoever, as irresistible, 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 liable to all kinds of punishments, (by their whole Kingdoms consent in Parliament) as far forth as they, notwithstanding all the former Objections, which quite subverts their cause.  
Thirdly, Kings and Kingdoms are not so God's Ordinance, as that they should be universal over all the world, and no other Government admitted; or so as any one Nation whatsoever should be eternally tied to a monarchial Government, without any power to alter it into an Aristocracy, or other form, upon any occasion; or so as unalterably to continue the Sovereign power in one family alone, as not to be able to transfer it to another, when the whole State shall see just cause: Hereditary Kingdoms being but Offices of public trust for the people's good and safety, as well as elective; most of them were elective at first, and 
* Foxius de Rege, etc. p. 17. Grotius de iure Belli, l. 1. c. 3. n. 10.  made hereditary only either by violent usurpation, or the people's voluntary assents and institution, and not by any immediate divine Authority, and so alterable by their joint assents, as 
s Explan. Artic. 42.  Zuinglius, 
t De jure Reg. apud Scotos.  Buchanon, 
v De Rege & Regis Instit. l 1. c. 4. to 8.  Mariana observe, and the Histories of most Kingdoms, the experience of all age's evidence. Which truths being generally confessed by all 
x Arist Polit. l. 3. & 5. Polyb. Hist l. 6. Gen. Haste. 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. hooker's Eccles. Pol: l. 1. see. 10. p. 69. 70, 71.  Politicians, Historians, Statists; by many judicious Divines, contradicted by no one text of Scripture that I have met with which our Opposites have objected hitherto, they will find all Monarchies upon the matter, to be mere 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 God's Ordinance only in regard of special providence, and the like, as other inferior Magistrates, Rulers are, who may be justly resisted, altered, removed, censured, notwithstanding the objected Text. From which whiles some men earnestly press, that every soul by Gods own Ordinance, aught to be subject to some public civil power, (which 
y See Scripture and reason pleaded for defensive Arms, p 30, 31, 32.  others safely deny, since the Patriarches, the first families of most Nations and Countries were not so, and all Nations, all people before settled public governments, were erected, which in many places are not very ancient; since those whose Parents are dead, and are not by them subjected to a Government, are naturally free; and none bound to part with their freedom to any other, unless they see a necessity, a great advantage, and that upon such terms and conditions as they deem meet,) they involve even Kings and Emperors themselves by Gods own Ordinance, in a subjection to a superior earthly civil power, to wit, to their Laws, Parliaments, Kingdoms, (which I have proved Paramount them, collectively considered) according to the common proverb 
z Seneca Grotius de jure Belli, l. 1. c. 4. sect. 6. p. 84.  Omne sub Regno graviore Regnum est; and that of 
a Eccles. 5. 8.  Solomon (concerning oppressing Kings and Judges) He that is higher than the Highest considers, and there be higher than they: And so make kings not only resistble by their whole Kingdoms the supreme Sovereign power, but likewise subject to their Realms superior commands, and uncapable to resist their lawful power and Forces even in point of Conscience, by virtue of this very Text. And so much for the fourth Question.  
For the fifth and last, 
b See Paraeus, willet, Tollet, Soto, Marloras, and others on this Text.  What kind of resistance of the Higher powers is here prohibited? I answer briefly, That resistance is here forbidden, which is contrary to subjection or obedience, as the words, Let every soul be subject to the higher Powers, coupled with the ensuing reason, Whosoever therefore resisteth (that is, disobeyeth, or is not subject to) the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 
Quest. 5.  In the Greek there are two distinct words used, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Latin, 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 sense it is used, Matth. 5. 39 Luke 21. 1, 5. Act. 6. 10. Rom. 9 19 Gal. 2. 11. 2 Tim. 3. 1. Hebr. 12. 4. jam. 4. 7. chap. 5. 6. 1 Pet. 5. 9 and applied indifferently both to a spiritual, corporal, and verbal resistance of the Holy Ghost, the Devil, or men: Since then the Apostle in this Text useth the Hebrew phrase Soul, not Man, Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers; because (as Haymo, Tollet, Willet, Soto, and most other Interpreters observe) we 
c judge 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 souls and spirits too: I may hence clearly infer, that the resistance of the higher Power he prohibited as contrary to this subjection, is not only that which is corporal and violent by force of arms, as the Objectors gloss it; but that likewise which is verbal, mental, spiritual in the soul itself without the body, and no more than a mere passive resistance, or not obeying: For not to do what the higher Powers enjoin, is in verity actually to resist, to withstand them; as not to do the will, not to yield obedience to the motions, dictates of the Holy Ghost or devil is really to resist them, even in Scripture phrase: Yea, corporal resistance or opposition by way of force is only an higher degree of resistance, but not the only or proper resistance here prohibited, which relates principally to the Soul and Spirit. For as corporal forced obedience against a man's will which still holds 
d 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 
e See (c) beso. 2 Cor. 9 13. 7. Rom. 12. 8. 11.  principally in the cheerful submission or activity of the soul or will: So a forced corporal resistance against the mind or conscience, is in a manner no resistance; and the very malignity, quintessence of all inward or outward resistance, disobedience, rests only in the mind, soul, will; and is here principally forbidden, as is evident by the 5. verse; Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath (which relates only to the body, which men's wrath can only harm in case of disobedience, Mat. 10. 28.) but also FOR CONSCIENCE SAKE, which principally, if not wholly relates unto the soul, of which the conscience is a chief-overruling part. This then being altogether irrefragable, gives our Antagonists, with Dr. Fern, an eternal overthrow, and unavoidably demonstrates the resistance of the Higher Powers here prescribed, to be only of just lawful powers in their just commands or punishments, which we must neither corporally, verbally, nor so much as mentally resist, but readily submit too with our very souls, as well as bodies: not of Tyrants or ungodly Rulers unjust oppressions, Forces, proceedings to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, which all our Opposites, all Divines whatsoever grant, we are bound in conscience passively to resist, and disobey; yea, with our Tongues to 
g 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, abhor, hate in the very highest degree of opposition, notwithstanding this inhibition: And therefore by like reason are no ways prohibited, but authorized by it, even forcibly to resist to our utmost power, have we means and opportunity so to do, as the Parliament now hath: That power and proceedings which Christians may lawfully with good conscience, yea and are bound to resist with all their souls, minds, tongues, they justly may and must likewise resist with all their corporal might and strength; especially if they have good opportunity, public encouragements, and means to do it, as Deut. 6. 12. 1 Pet. 5. 9 jude 3. 4. Phil. 1. 27, 28. 1 Cor. 16. 13. compared together, and with the premised Scriptures, fully evidence. But Christians may lawfully with good conscience, yea must resist with all their souls, minds, tongues, the forenamed violent proceedings of kings, Oppressors, ill Counsellors and Cavaliers, and no ways submit unto them with their souls, minds, tongues, lest thereby they should approve and be partakers, with promoters of their execrable designs; therefore they may and must with safe conscience resist them with all their corporal might and strength, having now opportunity, a Parliamentary public command and sufficient means to execute it. And thus have I now at last not only most clearly wrested this sword out of the hands of our great opposite 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 again.  
Yet before I wholly take my leave of this Text to gratify our Prelatical Clergy, I shall for a parting blow add this one observation more, That all our (
i 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 heretofore (and many of them till this day) notwithstanding the universality of this Text, Let every soul be subject to the higher Powers, etc. not only pretended themselves to be of right exempted from the jurisdiction censures, taxes of Emperors, Kings, and a● Civil Magistrates,) Which privileges some of our late Prelates began to revive, as the late cases of Mr. Shervill, the Mayor of Arundel, and some others evidence, censured for punishing drunken Priests) but likewise held it lawful to censure, excommunicate, depose even Emperors and Kings themselves, and interdict their Kingdoms; witness not only the 
k Bp. bilson's ●●ue Difference etc. par. 3. p. 369. to 376. Io. Whites Defence of the way c. 6. p. 14. to 22.  Pope's excommunications of many Emperors and Kings, by apparent usurpation and injury; but of sundry Prelates excommunications of their own Sovereigns as of right and putting them to open penances; as K. Suintilla, Sancho, Ramir in Spain, and others elsewhere, of which you may read divers precedents in my Appendix: The History of 
m Theod. Eccles. hist l. 5. c. 17, 18. Sozom. l 7. c. c. 34.  St. Ambrose his excommunicating the Emperor Theodosius for the bloody murder of those of Thessalonica, is so commonly known, that I need not spend time to recite it, nor yet the 
n See Math. Westm. Math. Paris, Hoved ●n Polychron. Fab. Caxton, Polidor, Virigit, Holmsh. Slow, Grafton, Speed, Daniel in the Lives of Hen 2. K. john and Hen. 3.  excommunications and censures of our King john, or Henry the 2. and 3. Suano King of Denmark (as Saxo-Grammaticus records) was not only sharply reprehended, but excommunicated in a most bold and solemn manner by one of his Bishops for his uncleanness, and murdering some eminent persons, of whom he was jealous, whiles they were at their devotions in the Church. 
l Pag. 62. Goe 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 entering so much as within the Court thereof; calling him not by the name of a King, which he suppressed, but a shedder of man's blood; and not content to chide him, he fixed the point of his Staff in his breast, preferring the public scandal of Religion before private society, not being ignorant, that the Offices of familiarity were one thing, the rights of Priesthood another thing, that the wickednesses of Lords as well as servants ought to be revenged, nor are Nobleman's crimes to be more partially censured, then ignoble ones: And not content thus to repulse him, he added an execration thereunto and denounced a sentence of damnation against him in his presence, so as he left it doubtful, whether he repulsed him more valiantly with his hand, or voice. Hereupon the King considering this Act to proceed from zeal and public severity against wickedness, and being confounded with the blush of his guilty conscience, forbade any to resist his violence, and patiently underwent, heard both his repulse and reprehension; After which, this King laying aside his royal Robes, put on old course apparel, desiring rather to testify his sorrow by the deformity of his habit, than his contempt by the splendour of it. And struck with so sad a sentence of the Bishop, he would not endure to carry about the ornaments of Royal Magnificence; but casting away the ensigns of Regal Majesty, he put on sackcloth the badge of penitence; putting off his power likewise together with his vestment, and of a sacrilegious Tyrant, became a faithful reverencer of holy things. For returning barefoot to the Church-porch, he cast himself prostrate in the entrance thereof, and humbly kissed the ground, suppressing the grief which is wont most sharply to be inflicted from contempt, with shamefacedness and moderation, redeeming the fault of his bloody reign with shame and penitence: After which confessing his fault, and craving pardon with tears of the Bishop, he was absolved, and then putting on his Royal Robes, admitted into the Church, and brought up to the Altar, to the exceeding joy of the people, who applauding the king's humiliation and modesty; plus poenitentia pium, quam imperto scoelest●●m 〈…〉 confessus: A memorable story of a zealous stout Prelate, and of a penitent submissive wild Prince: I shall only add to this some few domestic precedents of our Welsh Kings 
p S●elm Council tom p. 381 38. 〈◊〉 aodw n. Ca●al of ●ish. Edit. 2 2. p. 328.  Teudur king of Brecknock, for his perjury and murder of Elgisti● another King of that Country, was solemnly excommunicated by Gurcan the 10. Bishop of Landaffe and his Clergy, in a Synod assembled for this purpose, by uncovering the Altars, casting the Crosses and Relics on the ground, and depriving him 〈◊〉 Christian communion, Whereupon Toudur unable to undergo this malediction and rigorous justice, with a contrite heart, and many tears poured forth, craved pardon of his crimes, and submitted himself to the penance imposed on him according to his quality and greatness. 
q Spelm Concil. p. 382, 383.  King Clotri slaying juguallaun treacherously, contrary to his League and Oath, Berthgwin the 14. Bishop of Landaffe, hearing thereof, assembled a Synod of his Clergy at Landaffe, and solemnly excommunicated the King with all his Progeny and Kingdom, by uncovering the Altars, casting down the Crosses on the earth, and depriving the Country both of Baptism and the Eucharist. Whereupon the King unable to endure so great an excommunication, with great dejection submitted himself to the Bishop, and leaving his Kingdom, went on pilgrimage into foreign parts for a long space; after which returning, by the intercession of king Morcant, he obtained absolution from the Bishop, to whose enjoined penance he submitted himself, conferring divers Lands upon the Church. And in another Synod at Landaffe under this Bishop, King Gurcan, for living incestuously with his Mother-in-law was solemnly excommunicated in form aforesaid; whereupon he craved pardon, resolved to put away his Mother-in-law, promised satisfaction by K. judhail his Intercessor; upon which he was absolved, upon promise of amendment of life, with fasting, prayer and alms; after which he bestowed divers Lands on the Church, 
r Spelm. Con● p. 383, 384. Godw. Catal. of Bish. p. 523.  Hovel king of Glevissig, contrary to his Oath & League, treacherously circumverring and slaying Gallun, hereupon Cerenlyir the 18. Bishop of Landaffe, calling a Synod, solemnly excommunicated him by laying all the crosses on the ground, overturning the Bells, taking the Relics from the Altar and casting them on the ground depriving him of all Christian communion, under which excommunication he remained almost a whole years space; After which, this king came barefoot to the Bishop, imploring his absolution from this sentence with many tears, which he obtained after publke penance enoyned. Not long after the same Bishop and his Clergy in another Synod, for the like crime, in the selfsame former excommunicated Ili son of Conblus, till he came barefooted with tears and prayed absolution; which upon performance of enjoined penance, promise of future reformation, with prayers, fasting, alms, and the settling of some Lands on the Church, was granted him by the Bishop. So 
s 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 Brochuail, with his family convented before a Synod, threatened Excommunication, enjoined Penance and satisfaction by the Synod, for some injuries offered to to Civeilliauc the two and twentieth Bishop of Landaffe. 
* Goduin. Cata. log. of Bistr. p 527.  Mauric King of of Glamorgan was excommunicated by joseph the vl and twentieth Bishop of Landaffe, for treacherously putting out the eyes of Etguin during the truce between them; After which he was again publicly excommunicated in a Synod, for violating the Sanctuary of the Church of Landaffe, and hurting some of this Bishop's 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 
u 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, only because one of the King's followers being drunk, laid violent hands upon Bathutis the Bishop's Physician and Kinsman on Christmas day, Anno 1056. Whereupon all the Crosses and Relics were cast to the ground, the Bells overturned, the Church doors stopped up with thorns, so as they continued without a Pastor and Divine Service day and night for a long season, till the King (though innocent) submitted himself to the Bishop; and to obtain his absolution, gave Henringuinna to him and his Successors for ever, free from all secular and royal services, in the presence of all the Clergy and people. So 
x 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, contrary to his Oath, repairing to him upon the Bishop's word for his safe return, who never left vexing him, till he had delivered him up to to the King of England's hands. Many such precedents of Prelates censuring and excommunicating their Kings occur in Story, which for brevity I pretermit; only ' I shall inform you, that 
y Antiqu. Eccles. Bul. p. 245. See Walsingh. Hist. Angl p. 238. to 144.  john Stratford Archbishop of Canterbury, in the 14. year of K. Edw. 3, contesting with this King, and excommunicating divers of his followers, and all the infringers of the Church's Liberties, presumed to write thus unto his Sovereign; There are two things by which the world is principally governed, The sacred Pontifical authority, and the royal power, of which the Priesthood is by so much the more weighty, ponderous, and sublime, by how much they are to give an account of kings themselves at the Divine audit: And therefore the king's 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 faithful Christians? Is it not known to be apart of miserable madness, if the son should endeavour to subjugate the Father, the servant the master to himself? The Canonical authority of Scriptures testifieth, that diver. Pontiffs have excommunicated, some of them Kings, others Emperors: And if you require somewhat in special of the persons of Princes; Saint Innocent smote the Emperor Archadius with the sword of excommunication, because he consented that Saint John Chrysostom should be violently expelled from his See. Likewise Saint Ambrose Archbishop of Milan, for afault which seemednot so heinous to other priests, excommunicated the Emperor Theodosius the great: From which sentence, having first given condign satisfation, he afterwards deserved to be absolved; and many such like examples may be alleged, both more certain for time, and nearer for place. Therefore no Bishops whatsoever neither may nor aught to be punished by the secular Power, if they chance to offend through humane frailty: 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 of the Pious Prince of most happy memory, Constantine, saying, when the cause of Priests was brought before him, You cannot be judged by any, to wit, of the secular judges, who are reserved to the judgement of God alone; according to the assertion of the Apostle (very ill applied) saying, The spiritual man is judged of no man, 1 Corinth. 2. 15. (Not meant of Bishops or Clergymen, but Saints alone, endued with God's Spirit, not of judging in courts of justice, but of discerning spiritual things, and their own spiritual Estates, as the Context resolves:) Thus and much more this Prelate, who notwithstanding this text of the Romans, pleads an exemption of all Bishops and Priests from the kings secular power, by Divine Authority, and arrogates to Priest and Prelates, a judiciary lawful 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, john Bridges Dean of Sarum, and Bishop of Oxfort, even in his Book entitled, The supremacy of Christian Princes over all persons throughout their Dominions, in all causes so well Ecclesiastical as spiritual, printed at London, 1573. p. 1095. writes thus; But who denies this (M. Saunders) that a godly Bishop may upon great and urgent occasion, if it shall be necessary to edify God's Church, and there be no other remedy, flee to this last censure of Excommunication AGAINST A WICKED KING? Making it a thing not questionable by our Prelates and Clergy, that they may in such a case lawfully excommunicate the King himself: And Doctor Bilson Bishop of Winchester, in his True difference between Christian subjection and unchristian Rebellion, dedicated to Queen Elizabeth herself, printed at Oxford, 1595. Part. 3. Page 369. to 378. grants, That Emperors, Kings and Princes, may in some cases be Excommunicated and kept from the Lords Table by their Bishops; and grants, That with Heretics and Apostates, be THEY PRINCE'S or private men, no Christian Pastor nor people may Communicate: Neither find I any Bishop or Court Doctor of the contrary opinion, but all of them readily subscribe hereto. If then not only the ill Counsellors and Instruments of Kings, but Kings and Emperors themselves, may thus not only be lawfully, justly resisted, but actually smitten and excommunicated by their Bishops and Clergy, with the spiritual sword, for their notorious crimes and wickednesses, notwithstanding this inhibition; (which 
* Theod. Eccles. Hist. 1. 4. c. 5, 6.  Valentinian the Emperor confessed; and therefore desired, that such a Bishop should be chosen and elected in Milan after Auxentius, as he himself might really and cordially submit to him and his reprehensions, since he must sometimes needs err as a man, as to the medicine of souls; as he did to Ambrose, when he was elected Bishop there;) why they may not likewise be resisted by their Laity in the precedent cases with the temporal sword, and subjected unto the censures of the whole Kingdoms and Parliaments, transcends my shallow apprehension to conceive, there being as great, if not greater, or the very selfsame reason for the lawfulness of the one, as of the other. And till our Opposites shall produce a substantial difference between these cases, or disclaim this their practice and doctrine of the lawfulness of excommunicating Kings and Emperors, they must give me and others liberty to conceive, they have quite lost and yielded up the cause they now contend for, notwithstanding this chief Text of Romaves 13. the ground of all their strength at first, 
Object. 10.  but now of their ruin.  
The tenth 
x Dr. Fern Sect. 2. Appeal to thy Conscience.  Objection is this, that of 1 Pet. 2, 13, 14, 15, 16. Submit yourselves to every ORDINANCE OF MAN for the Lords sake, whether it be to The King AS SUPREME, or unto Governors, as unto them that are sent by him (to wit, by God, not the King, as the distribution manifests, and Rom. 13. 1, 2, 3, 4.) For the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well, etc. Fear God, Honour the King; we must submit to Kings and honour Kings, who are the supreme Governors; therefore we may in no case forcibly resist them or their Officers, though they degenerate into Tyrants.  
To which I answer; 
Answ.  that this is a meerin consequent; since the submission here enjoined is but to such Kings, who are punishers of evil doers, and praisers of those that do well; which the Apostle makes the Ground and motive to submission; therefore this text extends not to Tyrants and oppressors, who do quite contrary. We must submit to Kings when they rule well and justly, is all the Apostle here affirms; Ergo we must submit to, and not resist them in any their violent courses to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties; is meet nonsense both in Law, Divinity, and common Reason.  
If any reply, 
Reply.  as they do, that the Apostle, vers. 18, 19, 20. Bids servants 〈◊〉 subject to their Masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward: For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience towards God endure grief suffering wrongfully, etc. Ergo this is meant of evil Magistrates and Kings, as well as good. 
Answ.  I answer 1. That the Apostles speaks it only of evil Masters not Kings; of servants, not subjects; there being a great difference between servants, Apprentices, Villains, and free borne subjects, as all men know, the one being under the arbitrary rule and government of their Master; the other only under the just, settled, legal Government of their Princes, according to the Laws of the Realm: Secondly, this is meant only of private personal injuries, and undue corrections of Masters given to servants without just cause, as vers. 20. For what glory is it, if when ye be BUFFETED FOR your faults, etc. intimates: not of public injuries and oppressions of Magistrates, which endanger the whole Church and State. A Christian servant or subject must patiently endure private undue corrections of a froward Master or King: 
* See Heb. 12. 10. Matth. 5. 39, 40.  Ergo whole Kingdoms and Parliaments, must patiently without resistance suffer their kings and evil Instruments to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, Realms, (the proper deduction been) is but a ridiculous conclusion.  
Secondly, This Text enjoins no more subjection to kings, then to any other Magistrates; as the words: Submit yourselves TO EVERY ORDINANCE of Man; Or unto Governors, etc. prove past all contradiction; And verse 6. which bids us, Honour the King; bids us first in direct terms, HONOUR ALL MEN; to wit, All Magistrates at least, if not all men in general, as such: There is then no special Prerogative of irresistability given to kings by this Text in injurious violent courses, more than there is to any other Magistrate or person whatsoever; God giving no man any Authority to injure others without resistance, especially if they assault their persons or invade their Estates to ruin them: Since then inferior Officers, and other menmay be forcibly resisted when they actually attempt by force to ruin Religion, Laws, Liberties, the republic, as I have proved, and our Antagonists must grant; by the selfsame 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 expressly called; AN ORDINANCE OF MAN, not God; as I have formerly proved them to be. If so; I then appeal to the consciences of our fiercest Antagonists, whether they do believe in their consciences, or date take their Oaths upon it; That ever any people or Nation in the world, or our Ancestors at first, did appoint any Kings or Governors over them, to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties; or intent to give them such an unlimited uncontrollable Sovereignty over them, as not to provide for their own safety, or not to take up Arms against them, for the necessary defence of their Laws, Liberties, Religion, Persons, States, under pain of high Treason, or eternal damnation, in case they should degenerate into Tyrants, and undertake any such wicked destructive design. If not (as none can without madness and impudence aver the contrary, it being against all common sense and reason, that any man or Nation should so absolutely, irresistably enslave themselves and their Posterities to the very lusts and exorbitancies of Tyrants, and such a thing as no man, no Nation in their right senses, were they at this day to erect a most absolute Monarchy, would condescend to;) then clearly the Apostle here confirming only the Ordinances of men, and giving no Kings nor Rulers any other or greater power than men had formerly granted them (for that had been to alter, not approve their humane Ordinances) I shall infallibly thence infer; That whole States, and Subjects, may with safe conscience resist the unjust violence of their Kings in the foresaid cases, because they never gave them any authority irresistably to act them, nor yet devested themselves (much less their posterity whom they could not eternally enslave) of the right, the power of resisting them in such cases; whom they might justly resist before, whiles they were private men, and as to which illegal proceedings they continue private persons still, since they have no legal power given them by the people to authorise any such exorbitances.  
Fourthly, The subjection here enjoined, is not passive, but active, witness ver. 15. For so is the will of God, that by WELL DOING (to wit, by your actual cheerful submission to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake, etc.) you put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, and not using your liberty, etc. If then this Text be meant of active, not passive obedience; than it can be intended only of lawful Kings, of Magistrates in their just commands, whom we must actually obey; not of Tyrants and Oppressors in their unjust wicked proceedings, whom we are bound in such cases actually to disobey, as our Antagonists grant, and I have largely evidenced elsewhere: Wherefore, it directly commands resistance, not subjection in such cases; since actual disobedience to unjust commands, is actual resisting of them. And that these Texts prescribing resistance tacitly, should apparently prohibit it under pain of Treason, Rebellion, Damnation, is a Paradox to me.  
Fifthly, This Text doth no way prove that false conceit of most, who hence conclude: That all Kings are the Supreme Powers, and above their Parliaments, and whole Kingdoms, even by Divine institution: There is no such thing, nor shadow of it in the Text.  
For first, 
I.  This Text calls Kings, not a Divine, but Humane Ordinance; If then Kings be the Supremest Power, and above their Parliaments, Kingdoms, it is not by any Divine Right, but by Humane Ordination only, as the Text resolves.  
Secondly, 
TWO  This Text prescribes not any Divine Law to all or any particular States; nor gives any other. Divine or Civil Authority to Kings and Magistrates in any State then what they had before; for if it should give Kings greater Authority and Prerogatives then their people at first allotted them, it should alter and invade the settled Government of all States, contrary to the Apostles scope, which was to leave them as they were, or should be settled by the people's joint consent: It doth not say, That all Kings in all Kingdoms are, or aught to be Supreme; or let them be so henceforth: no such inference appears therein. It speaks not what Kings ought to be in point of Power; but only takes them as they are, (according to that of Rom. 13. 2. The Powers that ARE, etc. to wit, that are, even now every where in being, not which ought to be, or shall be) whence he saith; Submit to the King as supreme: that is; where by the Ordinance of man the King is made supreme; not, where Kings are not the supremest Power; as they were not among the 
a 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 Lacedæmonians, Indians, Carthaginians, Goths, Arragonians, and in most other Kingdoms, as I have 
b Part. 1. & in the Appendix.  elsewhere proved: To argue therefore, We must submit to Kings where the people have made them supreme; Ergo, All Kings every where are and aught to be supreme Jure divino; (as our Antagonists hence infer) is a gross absurdity.  
Thirdly, 
III.  This Text doth not say, That the King is the supreme sovereign Power, as most mistake; but supreme Governor, as the next words; or Governors, etc. expond it; and the very Oath of Supremacy, 1. Eliz. Cap. 1. which gives our Kings this Title, Supreme Governor within these his Realms. Now Kings may be properly called Supreme Magistrates or Governors in their Realms, in respect of the actual administration of government and justice, (all Magistrates deriving their Commissions immediately from them, and doing justice, for, and under them:) and yet not be the Sovereign Power, as the Roman Emperors, the Kings of Sparta, Arragon, and others; the Germane Emperors, the Dukes of Venice in that State, 
c Bodin. Common-weal l. 2. c. 5. l. 1. c. 10.  and the Prince of Orange in the Nether-lands, were and are the Supreme Magistrates, Governors; but not the Supreme Severaigne Powers; their whole States, Senates, Parliaments, being the Supremest Powers, and above them; which being Courts of State, of Justice, and a compound body of many members, not always constantly sitting, may properly be styled, The Supreme Courts and Powers; but not the Supreme Magistrate or Governor: As the Pope holds himself, the Supreme Head and Governor of the Militant Church; and the Archbishop of Canterbury styles himself, the Primate and Metropolitan of all England; and so other Prelates in their Provinces; yet they are not the Sovereign Ecclesiastical Power, for the King, at least General Counsels or national Synods (which are not properly termed Governors, but Power,) are Paramount them, and may lawfully censure or depose them, as I have 
d Parl. 1 p. 88  elsewhere manifested. To argue therefore, that Kings are the highest Sovereign Power, because they are the highest particular Governors and Magistrates in their Realms, as our Antagonists do; is a mere Fallacy, and Inconsequent, since I have proved 
e Par. 1. & the Appendix.  our own, and most other Kings, not to be the highest Powers, though they be the Supremest Governors.  
Fourthly, 
FOUR  This Text speaks not at all of the Roman Emperor, neither is it meant of him, as Doctor Fern●, with others mistake; who is never in Scripture styled a King, being a Title extremely odious to the Romans, and for ever banished their State with an 
f Livy Hist. l. 1. See the Appendix. p. 3. 4.  Oath of execration, by an ancient Law, in memory whereof they instituted a special annual Feast on the 23. of February, called, 
g 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 
h Aug. de Civ. Dei. l. 2.  and Augustine write; Regem Romae posthac, nec Dii nec Homines esse patiantur: And 
i Selden, ibid. Plutarchi, Iuli●● Caesar, ●atropias. Grimston in his life.  Caesar himself being saluted King by the multitude, perceiving it was very distasteful to the States, answered, CAESAREM SE, NON REGEM ESSE: which Title of Caesar, (not King) the Scripture ever useth to express the Emperor by: witness Matth. 22. 17, 21. Mark 12. 14, 16, 17. Luke 2. 1. chap. 20. 22, 24, 25. chap. 23. 2. John 19 12, 15. Acts 11. 28. chap. 17. 7. chap. 25. 8, 10, 11, 12, 21. chap. 26. 32. chap. 27. 24. chap. 28. 19 Phil. 4. 22. Which Texts do clearly manifest, that no Title was ever used by the Apostles, Evangelists, Jews, to express the Emperor by, but that of Caesar, not this of King. Therefore Peter's Text, speaking only of the King, not Caesar, cannot be intended of the Roman Emperor, as ignorant Doctors blindly fancy.  
Fifthly, 
V.  This Epistle of Peter (the 
k Gal. 2. 7. 8.  Apostle of the Jews) was written only to the dispersed Jews throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bythinia, 1 Pet. 1. 1. over whom Herod at that time reigned as King, by the Roman Senates and Emperor's appointment, who had then conquered the Jews, and made them a tributary Province, as is evident by Matth. 27. 17, 21. Mark 12. 14, 16, 17. Luke 20. 22, 24, 25. chap. 23. 2. Acts 17. 7. chap. 25. 8, 10, 11, 12, 21. chap. 27. 24. chap. 12. 1. to 24. compared together; and by 
l Ant. jud. l. 17. c. 12. l. 18 c. 1. l 20 c. 9 & De Bel. jud. l. 1.  Josephus, the Century writers, Baronius, Sigonius, and others. The King then here mentioned to be supreme, was Herod, or King Agrippa, or some other immediate 
m Mat. 3 1. c. 27. 11. Act 25. 13. 24. 26 c. 26. 2. c. 12. 1.  King of the Jews, who was their supreme Governor, not absolutely, but 
n Ant. jud. l. 13. to 20. John 19 12.  under the Roman Senate and Emperors, and made so by their appointment, whence called in the Text; an Ordinance of man, not God: Now this King of the Jews (as is evident by Paul's Appeal to Caesar from Festus and King Agrippa, as to the Sovereign Tribunal; Acts 25. and 26. by Josephus, Philo Judaeus de legatione ad Caium, and the consent of all Historians) was not the absolute Sovereign Power, but subordinate to the Roman Emperor and Senate, 
o Ios. de Bel. jud. l. 1 c. 10. 11. 12. 15.  who both created, and bad power to control, remove, and censure him for his misdemeanours; yet Peter calls him here Supreme, because the Highest Governor under them, as we style our Kings 
p See the Appendix.  Supreme Governors under Christ. Therefore having a Superior Governor and Power over him, to which he was accountable and subordinate; Supreme in the Text, cannot be meant, of a King absolutely Supreme, having no Power Superior to him, but God; but only relatively Supreme, in respect of under-Governours, there actually residing: whose Supremacy being forcibly gained only 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 inferior to their whole Senates and Congregations, and to do all by their advice, as Josephus Antiq. Jud. lib. 4. cap. 8. 2. Sam. 18. 3, 4. Jer. 38. 45. 1. Chron. 13. 1. to 6. attest) will no way advantage our Opposites, nor advance the Prerogative of Kings; since it extends only to the King of the Jews that then was, who was not simply Supreme, but a Subject Prince subordinate to the Roman State and Empire, and one appointed by a Conqueror, not freely chosen and assented to by the people. So as all the Argument which can hence be extracted for the absolute Sovereignty and irresistibility of Kings over their whole Kingdoms and Parliaments, is but this. The King of the Jews was in Peter's time the Supreme Magistrate over that Nation, by the Roman Senates and Emperor's appointment, to whom yet he was subordinate and accountable; the Romans having conquered the Jews by force, and imposing this government upon them, without their consents. Therefore the Kings of England, and all other Kings are absolute Sovereign monarchs, Superior to their whole Parliaments and Kingdoms, collectively considered; and may not in point of conscience be forcibly resisted by them, though they endeavour to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties: How little coherence there is in this Argument, the silliest child 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; 
x 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 Commonwealth; Ergo, They ought not to be resisted in any their exorbitant proceedings; it being unlawful, unseemly, for a Son to resist his Father; the Members the Head; the Vassals their Lord; the Flock their Shepherd.  
To this I answer: 
Answer 1.  First, They are Fathers, Shepherds, Lords, Heads, only in an improper, allegorical, not genuine sense; therefore nothing can thence be properly inferred: They are and aught to be such in respect of their 
y 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 careful affection towards their Subjects; not in regard of their Sovereign Power over them: Therefore when their Tyranny makes them not such, in regard of care and affection to their people; their people cease to be such, in regard of filial, natural, and sheep-like submission: When these Shepberds turn 
z 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 than Parents, because 
* 1 Pet. 2 13.  created by them, their public servants, ministers, for whose benefit they are employed, and receive 
a Rom. 13. 6.  wages; not their Sovereign Lords; their subordinate Heads, to be directed and advised by them, not Tyrannically to overrule them at their pleasure: Therefore Paramount, and able in such cases to resist them.  
Thirdly, 
3.  Parishioners may, no doubt, lawfully resist the 
b 2 John 10. 11  false Doctrines and open assaults of their Ministers, though they be their Spiritual Shepherds: Citizens the violent oppressions of their Majors, though they be their Politic Heads: Servants the unjust assaults of their Masters, though their lawful Lords; (who may 
c Littleton. sect. 19 4. & Coke Ib. p. 126.  not misuse their very Villains, by Law:) And if Parents will violently assault their natural children, Husbands their Wives, Masters their Servants, to murder them without cause, they may 
d See Alb Gen. de jur. 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, condemn his natural Father; A Servant, his Lord; A Parishioner his Pastor; a Citizen his Major; a mere Gentleman, the greatest Peer or Lord, as experience proves; because they do it in another capacity, as Judges and Ministers of public Justice, to which all are subject. The Parliament then in this sense, as they are the representative Body of the Realm, not private Subjects, (and their Armies by their authority) may, as they are the highest Sovereign Power and Judicature, resist the King and his Forces, though he be their Father, Head, Shepherd, Lord, as they are private men.  
Fifthly, This is but the common exploded Argument of the Popish Clergy, To prove themselves superior to Kings, and exempt from all secular Jurisdiction, because they are spiritual Fathers, Pastors, Heads to Kings; who ought to obey, not judge, and censure them, as 
e 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 actual resistance of parties assaulted, nor yet from imprisonment, censures, and capital executions by Kings and Civil Magistrates, in case of capital Crimes; Therefore by like reason it can not exempt Kings from the resistance, censures of their Parliaments, Kingdoms, in case of tyrannical invasions. We deride this Argument in Papists as absurd, as in sufficient to prove the exemption of Clergy men: I wonder therefore why it is now urged to as little purpose, against resistance of Tyrants, and oppressing Kings and Magistrates.  
The second reason is this, 
Object. 12.  
f Appeal to thy conscience, and others.  The Invasions and oppressions of evil Kings and Tyrants, are afflictions and punishments inflicted on us by God: Therefore we ought patiently to submit unto them, and not forcibly to resist them.  
I answer; 
Answ.  First, The invasions of Foreign Enemies are 
g 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 
h 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 sickness 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 Physic, but patiently lie under it without seeking remedy. Injuries done us in our persons, estates, names, by wicked men, who assault, wound, rob, defame us, are from 
h 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 
i 1 King cap. 11. & 12.  Scripture too: Ergo, Kings ought not to resist or suppress them by force of Arms; If all these Consequences be absurd, and idle, as every man will grant, the objection must be so likewise.  
I read, That in the 
* Joan. Ca●not. lib. 4. Polycrat. c. 1. & Boch●llus Decreta, Eccles. Gal. l. 5. 'tis 1. cap 5. p. 697.  persecution of the Huns, their King Attila being demanded of by a religious Bishop, of a certain City? who he was? when he had answered; I am Attila, the scourge of God: The Bishop reverencing the divine Majesty in him; answered, Thou art welcome o Minister of God; and ingeminating this saying; Blessed be he that cometh in the Name of the Lord, Opened the Church door, and let in the persecutor, by whom he obtained the Crown of Martyrdom, not daring to exclude the scourge of the Lord; knowing, that the beloved son is scourged, and that the power of the scourge itself is not from any, but God. Will it hence follow? That all Christians are bound in conscience to do the like, and not to resist the barbarous Turks, if they should invade them; no more than this Bishop did the bloody Pagan Huns, because they are God's wrath? I trow not. One Swallow makes no Summer; nor this example, a general precedent to bind all men.  
The third reason is this, 
Object. 13.  Saints forcible resistance of Tyrants, begets civil wars, great disorders, and 
k Dr. Ferne, Sect. 3, 4. and others.  many mischiefs in the State: Ergo, It is unlawful, and inconvenient.  
I answer, 
Answ.  First, That this doctrine of not resisting Tyrants in any case, is far more pernicious, destructive to the Realm than the contrary; because it deprives them of all humane means, and possibilities of preservation; and denies them that special remedy which God and nature hath left them for their preservation: Laws, denial of Subsidies, and such like remedies prescribed by Doctor Ferne, being no remoraes or restraints at all to armed Tyrants; Wherefore I must tell thee Doctor, Theologorum utcunque dissertissimorum sententiae, in hac controversia non sunt multo faciendae, quia quid sit Lex humana ipsi ignorant, as Vasquius controvers. Illustr. 81. .11. determines.  
Secondly, The knowledge of a lawful power in Subjects to resist Tyrants, will be a good means to keep Princes from Tyrannical 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, Laws, Arms will be merely useless to the Subjects, if resistance be denied them, when there is such cause.  
Thirdly, Resistance only in cases of public necessity, though accompanied with civil war; serves always to prevent far greater mischiefs than war itself can produce, it being the only Antidote to prevent public ruin, the readiest means to preserve endangered, to regain, or settle lost Liberties, Laws, Religion, as all age's witness; and to 
* Seditiones non facit, sed tollit quieversorem Patriae, publicaeque disciplinae co●●cerit, Vindiciae. contr. Tyrant. p. 145.  prevent all future Seditions and Oppressions.  
Fourthly, Desperate diseases, have always desperate remedies, Malo nodo, malus cuneus: When nothing but a defensive war will preserve us from ruin and vassalage; it is better to embrace it, then hazard the loss of all, without redemption. Ex duobus malis minimum. All Kingdoms, States in cases of necessity, have ever had recourse to this as the lesser evil; and why not ours as well as others.  
The last (and strongest Objection as some deem it) is the sayings if some Fathers backed with the examples of the primitive Christians, 
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 war, is that speech of Saint Ambrose, Lib. 5. Orat. in Auxentium. Coactus repugnare non audeo: dolere potero, potero flere, potero gemere: adversus arma, milites, Gothos, Lachrymae meae arma sunt: talia sunt munimenta sacerdotum: A LITTER NEC DEBEO, NEC POSSUM RESISTERE.  
This chief Authority, 
Answ.  though it makes a great noise in the world, if solidly scanned, will prove but Brutum fulmen; a mere scarecrow and no more.  
For first, Ambrose in this place speaks not at all of Subjects resisting their Princes, or Christians forcible resisting of the persecuting Roman Emperors; but of resisting Valentine, and the Arms and Soldiers of the Goths, who at that time 
l See Orosius, Europius, Paulus Diaconus, Grimston, and others.  over ran Italy, and sacked Rome, being mortal Enemies to the Romans, the Roman Emperors, Saint Ambrose, and Milan where he was Bishop.  
This is evident by the express objected words: I can grieve, I can weep, I can mourn, (to wit for the wasting of my native Country Italy, by the Invading Enemies the Goths:) against Arms, Soldiers, GOTHS (mark it) my tears are Weapons, etc. If any sequel can be hence properly deduced, it must be that for which the 
m 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 unlawful for Christians to fight, or make so much as a defensive war against invading Foreign barbarous Enemies, of whom this Father speaks: And then if the Irish Rebels, Danes, Spaniards, French, should now invade England, both against the Kings and Kingdoms Wills, we must make no forcible resistance at all against them with Arms in point of conscience, but only use prayers and tears.  
This is the uttermost conclusion which can properly be hence deduced; which our Antagonists will confess to be at least erroneous, anabaptistical, if not Heretical.  
Secondly, 
2.  You must consider who it was that used this speech; Ambrose, a Minister, than Bishop of Milan; who by reason of this his function being an Ambassador of Peace; had his hands bound from fight with any other weapons, even against invading foreign Enemies, but only with the sword of the spirit, prayers and tears: and that his calling only, was the ground of this his speech; is infallible by the latter clause thereof, which our Opposites cunningly conceal. Prayers are my Arms: For such are the Defensive Armour OF PRIESTS; Otherwise I NEITHER AUGHT NOR CAN RESIST: Why so? Because he was a Minister, a Bishop; and Paul prohibits such to be STRIKERS, Tit. 1. 7. 1 Tim. 3. 3. and because Priests under the Law did but blow the Trumpets, and never went out armed to the wars, Josh. 6. Upon which ground 
n Gratian Distinct. 5. & Causa 23. qu. 8. Aquinas. 2. 2. qu 40. Artic. 2. Silu. de Bello, p 3. Grotius de jur. Belli. l. 1. c. 5. sect. 4. p. 98. Nicetas Chro. l. 6.  Divers Counsels, decretals, Canonists, expressly prohibit, and exempt Priests and Bishops, from bearing Arms, or going to War, though many of them have turned 
o See Walsengham. hist. Angliae. p. 312. to 330.  great Soldiers, and been slain in wars.  
Hence Anno 1267, in a Parliament held at Bury, K. H. 3d. and Ottobon the Pope's Legate, demanded of all the Bishops and Clergy men, holding Baronies or Lay-fees, that they should go personally armed against the King's enemies, or find so great service in the King's expedition, as appertained to so much Lands and Tenants. To which they answered, That THEY OUGHT NOT TO FIGHT WITH THE MATERIAL SWORD; (no not against the King's Enemies) But with the spiritual; to wit, with humble and devoute tears and prayers, (using these words of Ambrose:) And that for their benefices they were bound to maintain Peace, NOT WAR.  
Hence our King 
q 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 spiritual, in that he had taken a Spear instead of a Crosier; an Helmet in lieu of a Mitre; an Habergion instead of a white Rochet; a Target in place of a Stole; an Iron-sword, instead of a spiritual sword. After which, the King sent his Arms with this Message to the Pope: See whether this be thy son's Coat or not? Which the Pope beholding, answered; No by Saint Peter. It is neither the apparel of my sons, nor yet of my Brethren, but rather the vesture of the sons of Mars. And upon this ground 
r 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 blood.  
This then being Ambrose his direct words and meaning, That he neither aught, nor could use any other Weapons against the invading Goths, and their forces, but prayers and tears; 
* See Io: Mayor in 4. Scot Dist. 15.  because he was a Minister, not a Bishop, a Layman; The genvine Argument that our opposites can thence extract, is but this. Priest's must use no other Defensive Arms, but prayers and tears, against invading foreign Enemies. Ergo, The Priests and Ministers in his Majesty's Armies, who bear Offensive Arms, must now in conscience lay them down, and use no other resistance, but prayers and tears against the Parliaments forces: where as their former inference against resistance: Ergo, It is altogether unlawful for the Parliament, or any Lay-Subjects by their command, to defend Religion, Laws, Liberties, against his Majesty's invading forces, who intent by force to subvert them; is but ridiculous nonsense, which never once entered into this Father's thoughts, and can never be extorted from his words.  
Ministers of the Gospel must not use any Arms, but prayers and tears to resist a foreign Enemy: Ergo, None else may lawfully use them to withstand an invading adversary; Is a conclusion fitter for Anabaptists than Royalists, 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, enjoining Bishops, and Clergy men, to array and arm themselves as well as other men, as the Precedents cited in Judge Cook his Argument against Ship-money; in the Parliaments two Declarations against the Commission of Array; and in the Answer published in the King's 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, Laymen may, and must resist, and fight against them with corporal Arms, since they are as proper for them in cases of needful defence, as these spiritual Arms are for Priests.  
The second Authority is that of 
s An appeal to thy conscience. p. 28. Grotius de jure 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 VNUM or Solum (as Grotius translates it) adversus persecutionem medicamentum habentes: To which I shall add by way of supply this other passage. Nos autem; quibus NULLA ALIA ARMA, nec muri, nec praesidia, praeter spem in Deum, reliqua erant: Vtpote OMNI HUMANO SUBSIDIO PRORSUS DESTITUTIS 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 clear by this, that Christians may use prayers and tears against Tyrants and oppressors.  
Secondly, that these are the most powerful prevailing Arms both to resist and conquer them. 
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. Tyrant's therefore are not the higher Powers, Kings, Rulers, which Paul and Peter in the fore-objected texts, enjoin men under pain of damnation to be subject and obedient to for conscience sake, and no ways to resist; since they may resist them with the powerfullest arms of all others, prayers and tears.  
Thirdly, 
3.  if they may be lawfully resisted with these most prevailing arms notwithstanding Paul's & Peter's objected inhibitions, then à fortiori they may be with corporal, which are less noxious and prevalent; he that may with most successful means resist, vanquish, and overcome his tyrannising oppressing Sovereign, may likewise do it by the less noxious Arms. If Christians may repulse and subdue a Tyrant with their Prayers, Tears, then why not with their Swords? Doth God or the Scripture make any such distinction, that we may and must resist them under pain of damnation, with these kind of weapons; and shall it be no less than Treason, Rebellion, Damnation to resist them with the other? what difference is there in point of Allegiance, Loyalty, Treason, Conscience, to resist an oppressing tyrannising Prince and his Forces with a Prayer, or with a Sword? with a Tear, or with a Spear? Are they not all one in substance? By the Statutes of 26 H. 8. c. 13. 1 E. 6. c. 14. 5 E. 6. c. 11. 1 Eliz. c. 6. 13 Eliz. c. 1. words against the King delivered even in Preaching, are made and declared to be high Treason, as well as bearing Arms, and striking blows; yea, the Statute of 1 & 2 Ph. & Ma. c. 9 makes certain prayers against this persecuting Queen, high Treason; and by the Statute of 25 E. 3. c. 2. it is high Treason for any man to COMPASS OR IMAGINE the death of the King, Queen, Prince, 
t The Christians than styled Julian, Idolianus, Pisaeus, Adonaeus, Tauricremus, alter Hieroboam, Achab, Pharaoh, etc. Nazianzen, Orat. 47. & 48. in julianum.  as well as to slay or levy war against them. If then we may, by the Objectors confession, the practices and examples of the Primitive Christians, against julian and others, fight with our Tongues, Prayers, Tears, Imaginations against our Sovereigns, who turn Tyrants and Persecutors; and thereby suppress, conquer, confound them, of which none make scruple, though our Statutes make it no less than high Treason in some cases; then questionless they may by the self same reason and ground, resist them with open force, notwithstanding any inhibition in Scripture. We may not, must not resist any lawful King or Magistrate in the just execution of his office, so much as with a repugnant will, thought, prayer, tear: we may, yea must resist an oppressing, persecuting Tyrant with all these; therefore with any other Arms, means 
v Exodus, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Numbers, judges and the Book of Psalms 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 external Arms. The Christians resistance and vanquishing their Emperor julian with the one, is an infallible argument, they might do it with the other too, there being no such distinction in the objected Scriptures, that we may fight against and resist them with our prayers, tears, not arms.  
Fourthly, 
4.  this Father saith not, that it was unlawful for the Christians to use any other weapons but tears against julian, the only thing in question. No such syllable in the Oration, but only, that they had no other Arms to resist and conquer him with, being utterly destitute and spoilt of all other humane help. Therefore their want of other Arms and help, 
* See Zozimen. l. 5. c. 2. Non Gentiles solum, etc.  not the unlawfulness of using them, had they had them, was the only ground they used prayers and tears, not arms. To argue then, those who are destitute of all Arms, but prayers and tears, must use them only: Ergo those who have other Arms besides prayers and tears, may not lawfully use them to resist a Tyrant, is but Scholastical Nonsense; yet this is the very uttermost this authority yields our opposites. In one word, this Father informs us, that this Apostate Emperor 
x Oratio. 1. in juli anum p. 760.  julian, would not make open war at first upon the Christians, because this would altogether cross the end he aimed at: (mark the reason) Nos enim, si vis inferatur, acriores obstinatioresque futuros, ac tyrannidi obnixum pietatis TUENDAE STUDIUM OBJECTUROS cogitavit. Solent enim fortes & generosi animi, ei QUI VIM AFFERRE PARAT CONTUMACITER OBSISTERE, non secus ac flamma, quae a vento excitatur, quo vehementius perflatur, eo vehementius accenditur. Which argues, that the Christians would have forcibly resisted him, had he at first with force invaded them; therefore he weakened, subdued, disarmed them first by policy; and then fell to persecute them with force, when they had no means of resistance left. 
Authority 3.   
The third authority is that of 
y Appeal 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 PUGNABIMUS USQUE AD MORTEM (si ita oportuerit) pro matre nostrâ ARMIS QUIBUS LICET, non scutis & gladiis, SED PRECIBUS ET FLETIBUS AD DEUM. Therefore it is unlawful for Christians to resist with force of Arms.  
I answer first, 
Answ. 1.  Bernard was both a Monk and Clergyman, prohibited by Scripture and sundry Canons to fight with military Arms against any person or enemy whatsoever; and he utters these words of himself, as he was a Clergyman, servant, and son of the Church; in the selfsame sense as Saint Ambrose did before. It was then only his Calling, not the cause which prohibited him forcibly to resist King Lewis.  
Secondly I answer, 
2.  that this authority is so far from prohibiting resistance of oppressing Princes, endeavouring with force of Arms to subvert Liberties, Laws, Religion; that it is an unanswerable proof for it, even in our present case: King Lewis to whom Bernard writes, had then raised a civil war in his Realm against Theobald and others who desired peace; which the King rejecting, Bernard doth thus reprehend him in the premises. Verum vos nec verba pacis recipitis; nec pacta vestra tenetis, nec sanis consiliis acquicscitis. Sed nescio quo Dei judicio, omnia vobis ita vertitis in perversum, ut probra honorem, honorem probra ducatis; tuta timeatis, timexda contemnatis; & quod olim sancto & glorioso Regi David, joab, legitur exprobrasse; diligitis eos qui vos oderunt, 
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 King's evil seduding Counsellors.) Then immediately follows the objected clause, At quicquid vobis, etc. After which he gives him this sharp reproof. Non tacebo quod cum excommunicatis iterare faedus & societatem nunc satagis, quod in necem hominum, combustionem domorum, destructionem Ecclesiarum, dispersionem pauperum, raptoribus, predonibus (sicut dicitur, adhaeretis; juxta illud Prophetae 
z Ps. 49.  si videbas furem currebas cum eo, etc. quasi non satis per vos mala facere valeatis. Dico vobis, non erit diu inultum, si haec ita facere pergitis, etc. Here this holy man prohibited by his orders to fight against this King, his Sovereign with his Sword; fights strongly against and resists his violence with his 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 far from yielding obedience to and not resisting him, according to Paul's and Peter's pretended injunctions, that he expressly tells him to his face, That HE WOULD STAND AND FIGHT AGAINST HIM EVEN UNTO DEATH (if there were need) with such weapons as he (being a Monk and Minister) might use, to wit, with Prayers and tears, though not with Sword and Buckler; which were more prevalent with God against him then any other Arms. So that he resists him in the very highest strain that may be; and clearly admits, that Laymen who might lawfully use Swords and Bucklers, might with them justly defend the Church in standing and fight for it against him even to death, as well as he might do it with prayers and tears, his proper Arms: Which answers that objection out of his 170. Epistle, written to the same King; and his 183 Epistle to Conrade King of Romans; where he subjects these Kings to the Pope, whom he adviseth them to obey; and reprehends them for their 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 Emperors; without resistance in word or deed. For proof whereof, several passages are recited out of Fathers, which I shall conjoin: the first is out of Tertullian his Apologeticus. Quoties enim in Christianos d●saevitis, partim animis propriis, partim legibus obsequentes? Quoties etiam praeteritis à vobis SUO JURE NOS INIMICUM VULGUS invadit lapidibus & incendiis? Ipsis Bacchanalium furiis, nec mortuis parcunt Christianis, quin illos de requie sepulturae, de asylo quodam mortis, jam alios, jam nec totos avellant, dissecent, distrahant? quid tamen de tam conspiratis unquam denotatis, de tam animatis ad mortem usque pro injuria repensatis? quamvis vel una nox pauculis faculis largitatem ultionis posset operari, si malum malo dispurgi, penes nos liceret. Sed absit ut aut igni humano vindicetur divina secta; aut doleat pati, in quo probatu●. Si elim in hosts exortos non tantum vindices occultos agere vellemus, de●sset nobis vis numerorum & copiarum? Plures nimirum Mauri & Marcomanni, ipsique Parthi, vel quantaecunque, unius tamen loci & suorum finium gentes, quam 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 REBELS, sed tantummodo discordes solius divortii invidia adversus vos dimicasse. Si enim tanta vis hominum, in aliquem orbis remoti sinum abrupissemus semus â vobis, suffudisset utique damnationem vestram tot qualiumcunque amissio civium, imò etiam & ipsa institutione punisset: proculdubio expavissetis ad solitudinem vestram, ad silentium rerum, & stuporem quendam quasi mortui urbes quaesissetis quibus imperaretis. Plures hosts, quam cives vobis remanisissent, nunc enim pauciores hostes habetis prae multitudine Christianorum, penè omnium civium. Which S. Cyprian (Tertullia's imitator) thus seconds, Laedere Dei & Christi servos persecutionibus tuis desine, 
Ad Demetrianum liber.  quos laesos ultio divina defendit. Ind 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, 
c Lib. 5.  tantò & justior fiat & gravior pro persecutione vindicta. Which Lactantius thus trebles. Confidimus enim Majestati ejus qui tam contemptum sui possit ulcisci, quam servorum suorum labores & injurias. Et ideo cum tam nefanda perpetimur, ne verbo quidem reluctamur, sed Deo remittimuus ulti●n●s. 
d 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 sum of all these Father's sayings (which I have largely cited, because I would conceal nothing that might be materially objected) is this: That the Christians in the primitive Church, though they were many in number, and sufficiently able to defend themselves against their persecuters by force of Arms, did yet refuse to do it, yielding themselves up to any tortures, punishments, deaths, without the least resistance in word or deed; Ergo, the Parliament and Kingdom ought now to make no resistance at all against the King's popish Army and Cavaliers, but to expose themselves to their cruelties and rapines, without the least resistance in word or deed.  
Because this objection sticks most with many Scholars, 
Answer.  Statists, and tender consciences, I shall endeavour to give a satisfactory answer to it, without any shifting evasions, or questioning the truth of Tertullias, and Cyprians assertions, concerning the multitude and strength of the Christians, and their ability to resist, which some have taken 
e Mr. Goodwin his Anticavalierisme, Scripture and Reason for defensive Arms.  great pains to refute.  
First, 
1.  than I say, that neither of all these Fathers say, That the primitive Christians held it unlawful, muchless damnable, in point of conscience for them to resist their persecuting enemies, no such syllable in any of them. And Tertullias, 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 lawful, because it is lawful to be slain as a martyr; therefore in this case to slay. So as there is nothing in these authorities in point of conscience to condemn the Parliaments present resistance, and defensive war, as unlawful:  
Secondly, 
2.  they all seem to grant, that the Christians deemed resistance even by force of Arms to be lawful for them, though they used it not; no Text of Scripture prohibiting, but allowing it, and these Fathers producing no one text which truly condemns it; this being the very sum of their words. That though 〈◊〉 Christians were exceeding many in number, of strength and power abundantly sufficient to defend themselves in a warlike manner against their persecuters, and had full liberty and no restraint upon them in point of Conscience either to withstand their persecutors with Arms, or to withdraw themselves from under the jurisdiction of their persecuters into remote parts, to the great weakening and loss of the State: yet such was their patience, innocency, and desire of Martyrdom, that they resisted not their Adversaries with force, nor retired, nor fled away from under their obedience, but cheerfully without the least resistance by word, deed, or thought, yielded up their Bodies, Liberties, Lives, to the cruelties of their Enemies, to obtain that Crown of Martyrdom which they desired, and to offer up themselves a voluntary freewill oblation to the Lord, who would certainly avenge all their wrongs. This is the sum of all these Authorities, which evidence resistance lawful in itself, and to these Christians too in their own judgements and resolutions, though the desire of Martyrdom made them freely to forbear it. These Examples and Authorities therefore abundantly corroborate, and no ways impeach our cause.  
Thirdly, 
3.  their examples of not resisting Persecuters, being rather voluntary, then enjoined, 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 gross inconsequent to argue: The Primitive Christians voluntarily refused to defend themselves with force of Arms 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 than 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 
f See Socrat. schelast. Theod. Niceph. Eccles. Hist. Fox Acts and Monuments. Tertul. Apolog. & ad Martyrs Cyprian ad Martyrer.  the primitive Christians, out of a desire of martyrdom, not only refused to resist, but to flee away from their Persecuters, when they might safely do it; some of them holding it unlawful and dishonourable to flee in such a case; by name Tertullian, in his book De fuga in persecutione. Will our Opposites from hence infer: Ergo, it is unlawful for Christians not only to resist, but even to flee from their Persecuters, or his Majesty's murdering, plundering Forces? Or for themselves to flee, not only from the Parliaments Forces, but Justice too, as many of them have done, yea, made escapes against Law to flee therefrom. If the Christians not fleeing, bind neither them, nor us, not to flee now, why should their not resisting only do it? Secondly, 
g See Fox Acts and Monuments, Vol. 1. passim.  The Primitive Christians ran to the stake of martyrdom, when they were neither accused, cited, persecuted by any, freely confessing themselves Christians, and rather desiring presently to die Martyrs, then live Christians, and reputing is worse than death not to be admitted to, or delayed the honour of being Martyrs, of which we have infinite Precedents in Ecclesiastical Histories commonly known and over-tedious to recite. I shall only instance in Julian the Apostates 
h Nazianz. Orat. 47. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Christian Soldiers: who being overreached by him under colour of a largesse, to throw some Frankincense into a fire secretly kindled by the Emperor in honour of an Idol, they dreaming of no such thing, and doing it only as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plementall Ceremony; as soon as they heard how the Emperor had overreached 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 zeal and wrath, ran through the Market place, and cried out openly, We are Christians, We are Christians in mind; let all men hear it, and above all, God, to whom we both live and will also die. O Christ our Saviour, we have not broken our faith plighted to thee: If our hand hath any way offended, verily our mind followed it not at all; we are circumvented by the Emperor's fraud with whose gold we are wounded. We have put off impiety, we are purged by blood. After which, posting speedily to the Emperor, and casting away their gold, with a generous and strenuous mind they exclaimed against him in this manner. O Emperor, we have not received gifts, but are damned with death. We are not called for our honour, but branded with ignominy. Give this benefit to thy Soldiers, kill and behead us unto Christ, to whose Empire only we are subject. Recompense 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 than sufficient unto us, whom we account in stead of all. The Emperor enraged with this speech, refused to slay them openly, lest they should be made Martyrs, who as much as in them lay were Martyrs; but only banished them, revenging this their contempt with that punishment. Will it then follow from these memorable examples, That all true Christians now in England and Ireland must come thus and offer themselves voluntarily to the Popish Rebels and Forces (now in Arms to extirpate the Protestant Religion in both Kingdoms) or that the Members of both Houses must go speedily to Oxford to the King and his evil 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 do) Ergo, all such persons voted Traitors and Delinquents in any kind by both Houses of Parliament, ought now in point of Conscience (to avoid the effusion of blood and ruin of the Realm, through the civil wars they have occasioned) to lay down their Arms, and voluntarily resign up themselves to the impartial Justice of the Parliament, without any the least resistance for the future: If no such Doctrinal, or Practical conclusions may be drawn from these their Precedents of voluntary seeking and rendering themselves up to the Martyrdom of their Opposites; then the unlawfulness of resisting cannot be inferred from this their non-resisting. Thirdly, how many cowardly Soldiers in all ages, and in this too, have voluntarily yielded up Forts, Castles, Ships, Arms, Persons, to their invading approaching enemies without fight or resistance? How many persons have resigned up their Purses to highway thiefs, their Lands to disseisors, their Houses, Goods to riotors, their Ships, Estates, Persons, to Turkish and other Pirates, without any resistance, when they might have lawfully and easily preserved them by resisting? Will it therefore follow, that all others must do so? that we must not sight against invading Enemies, Thiefs, Pirates Riotors, because many good Christians out of fear or cowardice, or for other reasons have not done it in all ages? I ●ow not. Will the Jews refusing three 
s 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 several times to defend themselves against their insulting enemies on their Sabbath; or the 
t Francisci à Carthagena Regum. Hisp. Aeeph. c. 44.  Goths not resisting their invading foes on the Lord's Day; or will the Alexandrian Jew's example and speech to Flaccus, 
u 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 
x 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, than these examples and authorities will no ways prejudice our present resistance.  
Fourthly, 
4.  the Christians not only refused to resist their oppressing Emperors and Magistrates, who proceeded judicially by a kind of Law against them, but even the vulgar people, who assaulted, stoned, slew them in the streets against Law, as Tertullia's words, Quoties enim praeteritis à vobis SUO JURE NOS INIMICUM VULGUS invadit lapidibus & incendiis, etc. manifest without all contradiction; and indeed this passage so much insisted on, relates principally, if not only to such assaults of the rude notorious vulgar, which every man will grant the Christians might lawfully with good conscience forcibly resist, because they were no Magistrates nor lawful higher powers within Rom. 13. 1. 2. or 1 Pet. 2, 13, 14. Either then our Antagonist must grant, that it is unlawful in point of Conscience forcibly to resist the unlawful assaults and violence of the vulgar or private persons who are no Magistrates: and that it is unlawful now for any Christians to resist Thiefs, Pirates, or bear defensive Arms, as the 
y Lucas Ostand. Enchir. contr cap. 9  Anabaptists (from whose quiver our Antagonists have borrowed this and all other shafts against the present defensive war) and so make the primitive Christians all Anabaptists in this particular: Or else inevitably grant resistance lawful, notwithstanding their examples and these passages of not resisting. The rather, because Tertullian in the next preceding words, puts no difference at all between the Emperor and meanest Subjects in this case; Idem sumus (saith he) Imperatoribus, qui & vicinis nostris 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 than deemed all forcible resistance of persecuters simply unlawful in point of Conscience, as being a thing quite contrary to Christian profession and Religion; then as it necessarily proves on the one side, That even Christian Kings, Princes, Magistrates, must in no wise forcibly resist the tumultuous Rebellions, Insurrections, and persecutions of their Subjects, because they are Christians as well as Rulers, and in this regard equally obliged with them not to resist with Arms; much less than their Parliaments Forces lawfully raised for the public defence. So on the contrary part it follows not, that therefore resistance is either unlawful in itself, 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 unlawful to them, cannot make it so to them, or us in point of conscience, since God hath not made or declared it so. Secondly, the primitive Christians held many things unlawful in point of Conscience, which we now hold not so. 
z De corona Militis.  Tertullian and others inform us, That the Christians in his time thought it a heinous sin (Nefas) to pray kneeling on the Lord's day, or between Easter and Whitsuntide (and so by consequence to kneel at the Sacrament) praying always standing on those days in memory of Christ's resurrection. Which custom was ratified also by many 
a Surius Concil. tom. 1. p. 347. tom. 2. p. 1052. tom. 3. p. 324. 277.  Counsels: Yet than it was lawful no doubt in itself for them to pray kneeling, and we all use the contrary custom now. The Christians than held it unlawful, to eat blood in puddings, or any other meats, as 
b Apologet.  Tertullian, 
c Octavius.  Minucius Felix testify, and many 
d Concil. Constant. 6. can. 76. Surius tom. 2. p. 1050.  Counsels expressly prohibited it since, as unlawful: Yet all Churches at this day deem it lawful, and practise the contrary. The Christians in Tertullia's days, and he himself in a special Book, De fuga in persecutione, held it unlawful to flee in times of persecution, and therefore they voluntarily offered themselves to martyrdom without flight or resistance. Yet we all now hold flying lawful, and all sorts practise it as lawful; yea many more than they ought to do. I might give sundry other instances of like nature: The Christians opinion therefore of the unlawfulness of any armed resistance of Persecuters public or private (held they any such) though seconded with their practice, is no good argument of its unlawfulness, without better evidence, either then, or at this present. Thirdly, the case of the Primitive Christians and ours now is far different; The Emperors, Magistrates, and whole States under which they then lived were all Pagan Idolaters, their Religion quite contrary to the Laws and false Religions settled in those States: There were many 
e 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 rank, 
f 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 apparent body of a State, to make any public forcible resistance in defence of Religion against Emperors, Senators, Magistrates, Laws, and the whole State wherein they lived, had neither been prevalent nor expedient; a great hindrance and prejudice to Religion, and as some hold, unlawful. But our present case is far otherwise; our King, Parliament, State, Magistrates, People, are all Christians in external profession, our Protestant Religion established, Popery excluded, banished by sundry public Laws; the Houses of Parliament, and others now resisting, are the whole body of the Realm in representation, and have authority, even by Law, to defend themselves and Religion against invading Popish Forces: In which regards our present resistance is, and may clearly be affirmed lawful, though the primitive Christians, in respect of the former circumstances, might not be so. Secondly, their resistance, (especially of the Magistrates not vulgar rabble) if made, had been only, singly for defence of their Religion then practised but in corners, publicly condemned, no where tolerated: Our present war is not only 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 Realm, and that by authority of Parliament, the representative body of the Realm. The Parliaments defensive war, therefore, upon these politic grounds is just and lawful, though the Primitive Christians, perchance in defence of Religion only, as its case than stood, would not have been so: even as the Roman Senators and States resisting of Nero, or any other Tyrannical Emperor's violations of the Laws, Liberties, Lives, Estates of the Senate, people, were then reputed just and lawful, 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 Father's meanings, with which our Opposites have seduced the illiterate over-credulous vulgar.  
I have now (through God's assistance) quite run through all Objections of moment from Scripture, Reason, Fathers, against the lawfulness of the Parliaments present defensive war, and discovered divers gross errors, yea, Impostures in our Opposites writings, wherewith they have perverted many men's Consciences, and cheated the ignorant seduced world: I shall therefore here advise them in the presence of Almighty God, as they will answer the contrary before his Tribunal at the Day of judgement, seriously to consider these my answers, and publicly to retract those their Errors, false gross misinterpretations, perversions of Scriptures, Authors, which I have here discovered. And since they pretend nothing but their satisfying and keeping of a good 
g Doctor Ferni Resolving of Conscience, An Appeal to thy Conscience, The necessity of Christian subjection, etc. all plead conscience.  Conscience in & by others, concerned in this Controversy; to show a sincere ingenuous Conscience therein themselves where they have been mistaken, since the contestation pretended, is not for Victory, Time-serving, or Selfseeking; but for Truth, God's glory, and the public weal: and if I have over-shot myself in any thing, I shall promise them a thankful acknowledgement, and ready palinedy upon their information and conviction of any apparent oversights, I may casually fall into.  
Now because they shall not deem me singular in my opinion concerning the lawfulness of subjects defensive Arms against their Sovereigns, bend to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, the Republic, or deem it is a late upstart Novelty, I shall conclude this discourse with such personal, natural and public authorities, as they shall not be able to balance with counter-resolutions; in which I shall be as brief as I may be.  
For personal Authorities, I shall not be ambitious to remember many, especially Papists, whose common, constant received opinion, and practice hath always been and yet is, 
h See part. 1. 1. p. 4. 6.  That Subjects upon the Pope's command alone, and absolution of them from their Sovereign's allegiance, may and aught to take up even offensive Arms against their own natural Princes excommunicated, interdicted, deposed, or only declared contumacious, Schismatical or Heretical by the Pope, without, yea, against their Kingdoms, Parliaments privities or consents, much more than 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 Supremacy, and Statut. of 3. jacobi, ch. 4. which prescribes it, in Bishop jewels view of a seditious Bull, in Doctor john White his Defence of the way, Chap. 6. & 10. in Abbess Vspergensis, Sabellicus, Valateranus, Grimston and others, in the Lives of the Roman and Germane Emperors; in Aventinchis Annalium Boyorum, the General and Particular Histories of France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Sicily, Hungary, England; in Bishp bilson's third part of the True Difference between Christian Subjection and unchristian Rebellion. In sundry Sermons on the fifth of November, to which I shall refer you: 
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 Liege, Henry the Emperor and his Assistants, wheresoever he should find them, excommunicated and deposed as an Heretic and enemy to the Church; telling him, that he could not offer a more grateful sacrifice to God, then to ware against them; concluding, Hoc tibi & Militibus this in peccatorum remissionem, & Apostolicae sedis familiaritatem praecipimus, ut his laboribus, & triumphis ad Coelestem Jerusalem, Domino praestante, pervenias: Which Letter was excellently answered by those of Liege. And in the 
* Eochellus Decret. Eccles. Gall. l. 5. Tit. 5. e. 5. p. 757, 758. Nich. giles Annals of France.  Council of Towers 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 temporal Princes, in lands which they held not of the patrimony of the Church, they might lawfully by force of Arms resist and defend both themselves and other; & not only repulse this injury, but likewise invade the lands of the Church, possessed by the Pope their notorious enemy, not perpetually to retain, but to hinder the Pope from becoming more strong and potent by them, to offend both them and theirs. And that it was lawful for such Princes, for such notorious hatred and unjust invasion to withdraw themselves from the Pope's obedience, and with armed force to resist all censures denounced by the Pope against them, their subjects and Confederates, and that such sentences ought not to be obeyed, but are mear nullities in law, which oblige no man. Yet I must inform you further in brief, that john Mayor a Popish Schoolman in Lib. 4. Sentent. (as Grotius writes) affirms, That the people cannot deprive themselves of the power, not only of resisting, but deposing Kings in cases which directly tend to their destruction; and that 
* De Potest Papae in Principes Christ. l. 4. G. 16.  john Barclay, a late Scottish Priest, though a strenuous defender of Prince's Prerogatives, expressly avers, That if a King will altenate and subject his Kingdom to another, without his subject's consents, or be carried with atrue hostile mind, to the destruction of all his people, that his Kingdom is thereby actually lost and forfeited, so as the people may not only absolutely resist, and disobey, but depose him, and elect another King: to which 
k Delure Belli, l. 1. c. 4. sect. 10, 11. p. 89 90.  Hugo Gortius a Protestant, freely subscribes; and john Bodin alloweth of Subject's resistance, yea, deposing kings, insome Kingdoms absolutely, and in some cases gener allyin all; De Repub. l. 1. c. 10. l. 1. c. 5 & l. 5. c. 5. & 6. For Protestant personal authorities; we have Huldericus Zuinglius, Explanatio Articuli, 40, 41, 42, 43. Tom. 1. fol. 82. to 86. who allows not only Subjects actual resistance, but deprivation of Kings, Where Princes set themselves to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties; and that by the common consent of the States in Parliament, from whom Kings originally receive their Royal power and authority. Martin Luther, Bugenhagius, justus jonas, 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, etc. A book entitled, De jure Belli, Belgici, Hagae, 1599 purposely justifying the lawfulness 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 General History of the Netherlands, l. 5. to 17. passim. Hugo Grotius de jure Belli & Pacis, lib. 1. cap. 4. with sundry other foreign 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; johu Knokes his Appellation, p. 28. to 31. George Bucanon De jure Regni apud Scotos, with many 
* See the ungerding of the Scottish Armour, ●, 4. 32. 34.  Scottish Pamphlets justifying their late wars: joh. Ponet once B. of Winchester, his Book entitled, Politic Govern. p. 16. to 51. Alber. Gentilis de jur. Belli, l. 1. c. 25. l. 3. c. 9 22. M. Goodman's Book in Q. Ma. days, entitled, How superior Magistrates ought to be obeyed, c. 9 13. 14. 16. D. A. Willet his Sixfold Commentary on Romans 13. Quaestion. 16. & Controversy, 3. p. 588 589, 590, 608, etc. 
* Andin. l. jud. 34, 55.  Peter Martyr Com: In Rom. 13 p. 1026. with sundry late writers, common in every man's hands, justifying the lawfulness of the present defensive War, whose Names I spare. And lest any should think that none but Puritans have maintained this opinion, K. james himself in his Answer to Card. Perron, justifieth the French Protestant taking up Defensive Arms in France. And 
l The true Difference, etc. part. 3. p. 520, 521, 522.  Bish. Bilson (a fierce Antipuritane) not only defends the Lawfulness of the Protestants defensive Arms against their Sovereign 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 foreign Realm, or change the form of the Commonwealth from Empery to Tyranny, 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 JOIN TOGETHER TO DEFEND THEIR ANCIENT AND ACCUSTOMED LIBERTY, REGIMENT AND LAWS, THEY MAY NOT WELL BE COUNTED REBELS. I never denied, but that the People might preserve the foundation, freedom, and form of the Commonwealth, 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 Commonwealths might not proportion their States, as they thought best, by their public Laws, which afterward the Princes themselves may not violate. By supertour Powers ordained of God, (Rom. 13.) we understand not only Princes, BUT ALL POLITIC 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 PRINCE'S WILL AGAINST HIS LAWS, BUT HIS PRECEPT DERIVED FROM HIS LAW, AND AGREEING WITH HIS LAW: 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 justice, but force, and despise all Laws to practise their lusts, not every, nor any private man may take the sword to redress 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, THAN BE THEY LICENCED BY MAN'S LAW, AND NOT PROHIBITED BY GOD'S, to interpose themselves for safeguard of equity and innoceucy, and by all lawful AND NEEDFUL MEANS TO PROCURE THE PRINCE TO BE RE FORM, but in no case deprived where the Sceptre is Hereditary. So this learned Bishop determines in his authorized Book dedicated to Queen Elizabeth, point-blank against our Novel Court-Doctors, and Royalists.  
But that which sways most with me, is not the opinions of private men, biased ofttimes with private sinister ends which corrupt their judgements, (as I dare say most of our Opposites in this controversy have writ to flatter Princes, to gain or retain promotions, etc.) But the general universal opinion and practice of all Kingdoms, Nations in the world from time to time. Never was there any State or Kingdom under heaven from the beginning of the world till now, that held or resolved it to be unlawful in point of Law or Conscience, to resist with force of Arms the Tyranny of their Emperors, Kings, Princes, especially when they openly made war, or exercised violence against them, to subvert their Religion, Laws, Liberties, State, Government. If ever there were any Kingdom, State, People of this opinion, or which forbore to take up Arms against their Tyrannous Princes in such cases, even for conscience sake, I desire our Antagonists to name them; for though I have diligently searched, inquired after such, I could never yet find or hear of them in the world; but on the contrary, I find all Nations, States, Kingdoms whatsoever, whether Pagan or Christian, Protestant or Popish, ancient or modern, unanimously concurring both in judgement and constant practice, that forcible resistance in such cases is both just, lawful, necessary, yea, a duty to be undertaken by the general consent of the whole Kingdom, State, Nation, though with the effusion of much blood, and hazard of many men's lives. This was the constant practice of the Romans, Grecians, Goths, Moors, Indians, Egyptians, Vandals, Spaniards, French, Britain's, Saxons, Italians, English, Scots, Bohemians, Polonians, Hungarians, Danes, Swedes, jews, Flemmins, and other Nations in former and late ages, against their Tyrannical 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 james, and our present king Charles. who assisted the French, Bohemians, Dutch, and German Protestant Princes in those Wars, with the unanimous consent of their Parliaments, Clergy, people) abundantly evidence beyond all contradiction; which I have more particularly manifested at large in my Appendix, and therefore shall not enlarge myself further in it here: only I shall acquaint you with these five Particulars.  
First, that in the 
m Slcidan. 8. 18. 22. Bish. bilson's Difference, etc. part. 3. p 518. Chylrae●● Chron. Sax. l. 13. p. 376, etc.  Germans Defensive Wars for Religion, in Luther's days, the Duke of Saxony, the Lantzgrave of Hesse, the Magistrates of Magdeburge, together with other Protestant Princes, States, Lawyers, Cities, Counsellors and Ministers, after serious consultation, coneluded and resolved, That the Laws of the Empire permitted resistance of the Emperor to the Princes and Subjects in some cases, that 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, THOUGH CAESAR OR ANY IN HIS NAME WOULD MAKE WAR AGAINST THEM; That if the Emperor had kept his bonds and Covenants, they would have done their duties; but because he began first to make the breach, the fault is his: For since he attempteth to root out Religion, and subvert our Liberty, he giveth us cause enough TO RESIST HIM WITH GOOD CONSCIENE; The matter standing as it doth, we may resist him, as may be showed by Sacred and profane Stories. unjust violence is not God's Ordinance, neither are we bound to him by any other reason, then if he keep the conditions on which he was created Emperor. BY THE LAWS THE MSELVES IT IS PROVIDED, that the inferior Magistrate shall not infringe the right of the Superior: and so likewise if the superior Magistrate exceed the limits of his power, and command that which is wicked, not only we need not obey him, BUT IF HE OFFER FORCE WE MAY RESIST HIM. So they in point of Law and Conscience then publicly resolved.  
Secondly, that the 
n 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 Councillors sway him now) there upon assembling together to consult of some just defence, to preserve the just and ancient government of the Realm. They demanded advice TOUCHING LAW AND CONSCIENCE, OF MANY LEARNED LAWYERS AND DIVINES; who resolved, THAT THEY MIGHT LAWFULLY oppose themselves against the Government which the House of Guise had usurped, and AT NEED TAKE ARMS TO REPULSE 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. 
o Dinothus Hist. Gal. l. 48 p. 227.  That defence of Religion and Liberties against violence and oppression were just causes of War; Et quod pia arma ea sint, ultra quae nulla restat spesvitae nec salutis. A like resolution and determination was mado by the chief Dukes, Peers, Nobles, and Officers of France, Anno 1614 which you may read in the Appendix.  
Thirdly, that the 
p 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 Trinity and their Popish Sovereigns, assembling solemnly together to consult how to prevent the great dangers then at hand, after long prayer and calling upon God for his grace and Spirit of direction and Counsel, well to manage their weighty affairs, and to preserve themselves and the Protestant Religion professed by them, concluded in the end, to enter into a solemn mutual Covenant, and to join in a League together for defence of themselves and their Religion; whereupon they all promised by God's grace and assistance, to maintain the pure preaching of the Gospel and administration of the Sacraments, and one to aid and assist the other, etc. which they did with good success, obtaining many glorious victories against invading persecuting enemies. The like did 
q Fox Acts & Mon Vol. 1. Ed. ult. p. 848. to 852. Pontaut Bohemiae piae, lib. 1.  Zisca, the Thahorites and Bohemians heretofore, and of 
r Grimstons' Imperial Hist. p. 655, 730. to 740, 746, to 806 sparsim.  later times; as the Maginall Authors largely relate, resolving it just and lawful for them in Law and Conscience, to defend themselves and their Religion by force of Arms against their persecuting Sovereigns.  
Fourthly, that the 
s Erman. Mes teranus, Hist. Belgica, Grimsi. Gen. Hist. of the Netherlands.  netherlands Provinces, being oppressed in their Bodies, Estates, by the Duke of Alva and Spaniards Tyranny, 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 Tyranny; as you may read at large in their Histories. And in the year 1572. The Prince of Orange and his Confederates, having levied a goodly Army to relieve Mons besieged by the Duke of Alva, 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.  
We William by the Grace of God, Prince of Orange, Earl of Nassau, etc. To all Noblemen, Knights, Gentlemen, and others, of what quality soever of these Netherlands, which desire the Liberty thereof, being miserably tyrannised and oppressed by the Duke of Alva, the Spaniards, and other their friends, TRAITORS AND MURDERERS OF THEIR OWN COUNTRY, We declare that everyone of us, for a particular love and zeal he bears unto his Country, and for the glory of God, which we desire above all, have often sought by all means the good and quiet of the Country, as well by Petitions and other mild means, as by force of Arms, thinking to draw those that were as we are, to do the like, sometimes by sighs and prayers unto God, having had patience until that it should please him to mollify the hearts of the said Tyrants; but in the end solicited and called generally and particularly by the inhabitants of the said Country, by reason of the inhumanities' and oppressions; We have in the Name of God (ACCORDING TO OUR CONSCIENCES) TAKEN ARMS; protesting before God and his Angels, and before all Men present and to come, that we have not been moved hereunto by any private passion, but with an ardent desire which we have to oppose ourselves against this more than barbarous and unsupportable tyranny, to the Proclamations, Edicts, taxes, Imposts and charges of the hundreth, thirtieth, twentieth and tenth penny imposed by the insatiable covetousness of the Duke of Alva, against the Law's Liberties, Freedoms, and ancient Privileges of the said country; which Laws, Liberties, freedoms and ancient privileges, we mean (by the grace of God) to restore unto the said country, holding it under the obedience of their Prince and natural Lord, as we are bound to do: affirming and maintaining, that 
* gi' Princepa Tyrannus est, ●ure Naturali re●quis omnibus mundi Principilius incumbit illi populo Trannidem patienti open & cuxilium far; hominum egregiorum virorum bas est vera laus, decus & benor. Vasquius Contro iii. 36. ● 36.  all Princes and Noblemen, Gentlemen, Commonweals, or others, of what quality soever, be they strangers or homebred, that have been moved to give us aid or assistance IN THIS SO JUST AN ENTERPRISE, have not done 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 general and particular, to assure themselves, that we intent not to do 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 BOND TO SUCCOUR US BY ALL DUE AND POSSIBLE MEANS. In the mean time we will give order, that God and the country may be served, in procuring the preservation of the people, and the 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 ENTERPRISE.  
This their defensive War, yet continuing, hath been justified by many, and in special maintained to be just and honourable BOTH IN LAW AND CONSCIENCE in a particular Book De jure Belli Belgici, printed at the Hague with the State's approbation, 1599 to which I shall refer you.  
Fifthly, 
r Mytronimus Elanca Aragenens. Rerum Comment. p. 661. 46● 〈◊〉 p. 652.  (which comes nearest to our present case of any story I have met with) Alphonso the 3. king of Arragon, in the year 1286. through the ill advice 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 Laws to reform and order his Court, his Courtiers, which he denied, but they affirmed, they had just right and power to do. Hereupon, the business being put unto greater difficulty; the Estates affirmed. A Comitiis intempestive discedere Regi NEFAS ESSE, That IT WAS A WICKED ACT, FOR THE KING THUS UNSEASONABLY TO DEPART FROM THE PARLIAMENT; NEITHER WAS SO GREAT. A BREACH OF THEIR PRIVILEGES AND RIGHTS TO BE PATIENTLY ENDURED: Whereupon they presently raised up the Name and FORCES OF THE UNION or Association (formerly made and entered into between the Nobility, Cities, and people, mutually to aid and assist one another to preserve the Peace and Liberties of the Realm, even with force of Arms) IT BEING LAWFUL for the common cause of Liberty; Non Verbis solum, SED ARMIS QVOQVE CONTENDERE, not only TO CONTEND with words, BUT ALSO WITH ARMS. Upon this, king Alphonso desirous to prevent the mischiefs them present and incumbent, by advice of his Privy Counsel, published certain good Edicts at Osca for regulating his Court, Counsel, judges, Officers; by which he thought to have ended all this Controversy, but because they were promulged only by the Kings own Edict, not by the whole Parliament as binding Laws, they still proceeded in the Union; till at last, after various events of things, this King returning to the General Assembly, and Parliament of the Estates at Saragossa, in the year 1287 condessended to their desires, and confirmed the two memorable privileges of the Union, with the Sovereign power of the justice of Arragon, which could control their very Kings: Of which see more in the Appendix.  
I shall close up this of the lawfulness of a necessary defensive war, with the speech of the Emperor Alexander Severus, recorded by 
f Quoted by Grotius de jure 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 success is present with him from hence, that he offers not injury, but removes it.  
Thus have I now at last waded thorough this weighty controversy, of the lawfulness both in point of Law and Conscience, of the Parliaments present, and all other subjects necessary Defensive Wars against their Sovereigns, who invade their laws liberties, Religion, Government, to subvert them, by open force of Arms: in which I have freely and impartially discharged my conscience, not out of any turbulent, seditious, or disloyal intention, to forment or perpetuate the present, or raise any future destructive, unnatural wars between king, Parliament, and People, or to countenance, to encourage any tumultuous, rebellious, factious, ambitious, traitorous spirits to mutiny or rebel against their Sovereigns for private injuries, or upon any false unwarrantable ends or pretences whatsoever; (let Gods curse and men's for ever rest upon all those, who are in love with any war, especially a Civil, within their own dearest Countries bowels; or dare abuse my loyal sincere Lucubrations to any disloyal sinister designs, to the prejudice of their Sovereigns, or the States wherein they live:) but only out of a cordial desire to effect such a speedy, 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 evil Counsellors, his Popish Malignant Forces, that if they will still proceed unnaturally and treacherously to make war against their Native Country, Religion, Laws, Liberties, and the Parliament, (which to do I have 
t Part. 1. 〈◊〉 2. p. 108. to 112.  elsewhere manifested to be no less than high Treason, Rebellion, against both King and Kingdom) they may in point of conscience and Law too, be justly opposed, resisted, repulsed, even by force of Arms, without any guilt of Treason, Rebellion, or fear of temporal or eternal condemnation, as public Enemies, Rebels, Traitors to the Realm, whatevever they have hitherto been informed of to the contrary by temporising Lawyers, or flattering illiterate Court Divines; and by assuring all such noble generous public spirits, who shall willingly adventure their lives or fortunes by the Parliaments command, in the present necessary defensive war, for the ends premised; that for this good service they shall neither in the Courts of Law, nor Conscience, incur the least stain, or guilt of Treason, Rebellion, sedition, or any such like odious crime, much less eternal condemnation; the panic fear whereof, frequently denounced against them by many sottish Malignants, Royalists, ill-instructed Lawyers and Theologasters, hath frighted, kept back, and withdrawn multitudes from, yea cooled, corrupted many in this honourable public duty, service, which they now owe of Right to God and their Country; in which to be treacherous, perfidious, slothful, negligent, cold, uncordiall, or timorous (as too many hitherto have been, to the greater honour of those who have been faithful, active, Valiant, and sincere) especially now after so many late horrid treacheries most happily discovered and a new Covenant solemnly entered into, demerits a perpetual brand of infamy and reproach. To die fight for one's dearest bleeding, dying Country, hath in all ages been honoured with a Crown of Martyrdom; to live or die fight against it hath ever deserved the most capital censures, ignominies, and heaviest execrations. Let both sides therefore now seriously ponder and lay all the premises close to their souls, consciences; and then I doubt not through God's blessing, but a happy peace will speedily thereon ensue 
x Isay 2. 4.  Nation shall not lift up sword against Nation, Country against Country, Englishman against Englishman, Brother against brother any more, as now they do, neither shall they learn such an unnaturaall cursed kind of Civil War any more, but beat their swords into Ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; and 
y Rom. 16. 16. 1. 1 Thess. 5. 26. 1. Pet. 5. 14.  greet one another with a kiss of holy peace and charity: Which desired end and issue of these present bloody wars God in his mercy hasten and accomplish, to the joy of all our Souls.  
I should now, according to former engagements, proceed to other remaining particulars; but because this part hath already far exceeded its intended bounds, out of a desire to give full satisfaction in a point of highest present, and future concernment every way; I shall reserve the residue, with the Appendix, for another distinct part; with which I shall conclude my Meditations and Collections of this subject, without any further Additions, if God say Amen.  
Finis Partis tertiae.   

Errata.  
PAg. 100 l. 28. to. by. p. 101. l. 32. Omri, Zimri. l. 40. judah. Israel. p. 115. 1. 12. that. p. 127. l. 36. of their. p. 128. l. 31. hence. p 136. l. 8. not a Bishop; a Bishop, not a Layman.