rule which took such deep impression in the primitive Christians, that, though for personal valour, numbers of men, and leaders able to conduct them, they were superior to the adverse party in the Roman empire, yet they chose rather to expose their lives unto the merciless fury of the persecutors, than take up arms against their princes, or disturb the peace of their dominions, under pretence of standing in their own defence, being so tyrannically and unjustly handled. For proof whereof, we may alledge Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, and some other ancients, whose words we will produce at large,. if you think it necessary.

12. Q. You need not put yourself to that trouble. For we deny not, that the ancient Christians did rather choose to suffer, than to take up arms; but, when we say, that, though they were exceeding numerous, yet they were not formed into states and kingdoms, and that when they were once estated in laws and liberties, as in France, Hol- land, Scotland, and Germany, they made no question then to defend themselves: What can you answer unto that?

A. I suppose the Roman empire was a settled state, as strongly cemented with all the ligaments of power and policy, as any one of these you mention; and that the subjects of that empire had their laws and liberties, which, as their ancestors had received from the indulgence of their emperors, and the Roman senate, so they transmitted them to their posterity. And yet, when all the empire had received the faith in the time of Constantine, and that no religion but the Christian had publick countenance from the laws, during the most part of his reign, and the whole reign of his three sons (which was for fifty-five years, no fewer) the subjects kept themselves to their former principles. Insomuch that, when the Emperor Julian began to intrench upon their liberties, and infringe those laws, which had been granted them by the grace and goodness of those princes, they knew no other way, nor weapons, by which to make resistance to such lawless violence, but their prayers and tears: Καὶ τῶτο μόνον κατὰ τῇ διώκτες φάρμακον, And this was all the medicine which they had to cure that malady, as we find in Nazianzen. The like I could produce from St. Ambrose also, were not this sufficient. And for your instances of France, Holland, Scotland, and Germany, which you have mustered up to make good your cause; I am sorry for the protestant religion's sake, that you have furnished me with so many examples of rebellions since the reformation; some of which ended in the death, and others in the deposition of their natural princes: which was a point you seemed to doubt of in your tenth question.

13. Q. But, tell me seriously, do you conceive that all resistance of this kind, made by force of arms, may be called rebellion; and that there are no cases which may make it lawful, and warrantable by the laws of God or man?

A. Your question hath two several parts, and must receive two several answers. And, to the first, I answer seriously, it being now no time to trifle, that all resistance, of the kind you speak of, not only may be called rebellion, but is rebellion in the true and natural sense of the word. For if, as the Civilians say, Rebellis dicitur inobediens

Principi circa concernentia prosperitatem Imperii, That every one may be said to be a rebel, who yielded not obedience to his prince in all such particulars, as do concern the flourishing estate of his dominions; assuredly he is a rebel in the highest degree, who takes up arms against his sovereign, whatever his pretences be, and, by so doing, doth embroil his kingdoms in all these miseries, which most inseparably are annexed to a civil war. 'Now frame the second part of the present query, into a distinct question of itself, and I will give such an answer to it, as I hope shall satisfy.

14. Q. My question is, Whether the condition of the persons which are engaged in such resistance, the grounds on which they go, and the end they aim at, make not an alteration in the case; so that resistance, qualified by these several circumstances, become not warrantable by the laws both of God and man?

6

A. The answer unto this is already made in the book of Homilies; where it is said, that, Though not only great multitude of the rude and rascal commons, but sometimes also men of great wit, nobility, and authority, have moved rebellion against their lawful princes; though they should pretend sundry causes, as the redress of the commonwealth, or reformation of religion, though they have made a great shew of holy meaning by beginning their rebellion with a counterfeit service of God, and by displaying and bearing about divers ensigns and banners, which are acceptable unto the rude ignorant common people (great multitudes of whom, by such false pretences and shews, they do deceive and draw unto them) yet, were the multitudes of the rebels never so huge and great, the captains never so noble, politick, and witty, the pretences feigned to be never so good and holy, yet the speedy overthrow of all rebels, of what number, state, or condition soever they were, or what colour or cause soever they pretended, is, and ever hath been such, that God doth thereby shew, that he alloweth neither the dignity of any person, nor the multitude of any people, nor the weight of any cause, as sufficient for which the subjects may move rebellion against their princes.' So far the very words of the book of Homilies.

15. Q. Why do you tell us thus of the book of Homilies, composed by a company of ignorant bookmen, men utterly unskilful in the laws of the land. Think you that we ascribe to them so much authority, as to be over-ruled by them in this case?

A. It may be not. But I must tell you that there was a statute made in the thirteenth year of Queen Elisabeth, intitled, An act for reformation of disorders in the ministers in the church, &c. in which it was enacted, amongst other things, that all who were to be admitted unto holy orders, or instituted into any ecclesiastical preferment, should first subscribe unto the articles of religion, agreed upon in convocation, anno 1562. One of which articles recites the names and titles of each several homily, and approves their doctrine. So that, although the Homilies were at first composed by men unskilful in the laws, as you please to say, yet they received both strength and approbation from the skilfullest lawyers of those times, convened with the nobility and gentry in the court of parliament, and consequently have as much authority as

the parliament could add unto them. But, since you are not pleased with this general answer, give me your doubts and queries in particular, and see what I can say unto them?

16. Q. First then, I ask, whether if the King become a tyrant, it be not lawful, in that case, to bear arms against him?

Yet

A. Yes, if George Buchanan may be judge, who tells us plainly that he would have rewards proposed to such as should kill a tyrant, as formerly there were for those who destroyed wolves. But, if St. Paul may rule the case, we shall find it otherwise. For if we ask to whom it was that the Apostle did command subjection to be given, even by every soul; to whom it was that he forbad resistance to be made, upon pain of damnation; we shall find it was no other than the Emperor Nero, the greatest tyrant, the bloodiest and most terrible prince, the greatest monster of mankind, that ever yet was born of woman. St. Paul, writing to the Romans, over whom he did so cruelly tyrannise, commanded every soul to be subject to him, not for wrath only, but for conscience sake, and that, upon the pain and peril of damnation, no man should be so bold as to resist his power, or rebel against him. And, doubtless, Nebuchadnezzar was a mighty tyrant, one who had taken from the Jews their laws, their liberty, their religion, and whatsoever else was most dear unto them. Yet were the Jews commanded to submit unto him, and patiently to bear the yoke which was laid upon them; and not to hearken to their prophets, nor to their diviners, nor unto their dreamers (mark it, for this is just your case) which speak unto you, saying, Ye shall not serve the King of Babylon, for they prophesy a lye unto you, that you should perish, Jerem. xxvii. v. 9. Finally, to oppose the saying of an heathen man, unto that wicked speech of him who did pretend so much unto reformation, we find it thus resolved in Plutarch, Οὐ θεμιτὸν ἐδὲ ενομισμένον βασιλέως σώματι τὰς χειρὰς προσφέρειν, That it was contrary both to positive laws, and the law of nature, for any subject to lift up his hand against the person of his sovereign.

17. Q. Is it not lawful to bear arms against sovereign princes, for the preservation of religion?

A. Yes, for those men who place religion in rebellion, and whose faith is faction, but for no men else. The Jews might well have pleaded this against Nebuchadnezzar, when he destroyed their temple, and forbad their sacrifices; and the Christians in Tertullian's time, when they were at the strongest, against the Emperor Severus, who did not only labour to suppress religion, but utterly to root out the professors of it; and yet the contrary doctrine was then preached and practised, as before was shewed you. What weapons the poor Christians did make use of, in the time of Julian the apostate, in his endeavours to subvert the gospel, and establish Paganism again in the place thereof, we told you lately out of Nazianzen; and shall now add, that the Christian party was then so strong and powerful in the Roman armies, that, when Jovinian was elected Emperor on the death of Julian, the soldiers with one voice cried out, Καὶ αὐτὸς εἶναι χρισιανός, That they were all Christians. So that it was not consciousness of their own weakness, nor the fear of wrath; but conscience of their duty, and the fear of God,

which made them patiently submit to the present storm. Thus, when the younger Valentinian endeavoured to supplant the true religion, and to set up Arianism, to which he strongly was addicted, the tyrant Maximus made offer to St. Ambrose of his arms and forces, the better to inable him to resist the Arians, and to preserve the true religion; but the good father absolutely refused the offer. And though he was so well beloved and honoured by the people generally, that he could easily have armed them against the Emperor, and crushed the Arian faction in the court, by whom his councils were directed; yet he betook himself to no other weapons, than his prayers and tears, the ancient weapons of the Christian: Coactus repugnare non novi, dolere potero, potero flere, potero gemere; aliter nec debeo nec possum resistere; other resistance knew he none, though pressed and oppressed too, than his tears and prayers.

18. Q. What, if he violate our laws, and infringe our liberties, may we not then bear arms against him?

A. Somewhat in answer to this you received before, in the command imposed upon the Jews by the prophet Jeremy, not to rebel, or take up arms (which come both to one) against Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, although he did so tyrannise and lord it over them, that neither their old laws, nor liberties, were a jot regarded. But that, which I shall tell you now, is St. Paul's case, in the xxiiid of the Acts. Being brought to plead his own cause, and the Gospel's too, before the council of Jerusalem, in the first entrance to his plea, the high-priest, Ananias, commanded them that stood by to smite him on the mouth; and sitting there to judge him after the law, commanded him to be smitten contrary to the law. St. Paul, upon the apprehension of so great an injury, so plainly contrary unto the laws, and liberties of the Jewish subject, calls him whited wall, and threateneth him with vengeance from Almighty God. But finding that it was the high-priest whom he had reviled (who had sometimes the supreme government of the Jewish state) he cried Peccavi out of hand, imputed his offence to ignorance, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high-priest; and, finally, condemned himself with a Scriptum est, saying, It is written, thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. If so, in case we may not speak evil of our rulers, when they smite us contrary to the laws, and the subject's liberty, which is the rebellion of the tongue, assuredly we may not take up arms against them, under those pretences, which is the rebellion of the hand.

19. Q. What, if the King be in the hands of evil counsellors, may we not take up arms to remove them from him?

A. Yes, if the Earl of Essex may be judge, whose father fell into rebellion under that pretence, ut regnum ab impotenti quorundam dominatu liberaret, as to free the kingdom from some men who had got the queen into their hands, and consequently ingrossed unto themselves the principal managery of the commonwealth. But he had other aims than that, as before was told you; and so had they that went before him in the self-same road. When Watt Tyler, and Jack Straw, and the residue of that rascal rabble, had took up arms against King Richard the Second, they made the Londoners believe (who have been

always apt to be deluded by the like pretences) that, when they had seized on the evil counsellors, which abused the King, and brought them to a legal trial, then they would be quiet. But, under this pretence, they broke open prisons, robbed churches, murdered the King's good subjects, and finally, arrived to so high an impudence, that Watt Tyler did not stick to say, That, within four days, all the laws of England should proceed from his mouth. And, when Jack Cade had drawn the Kentish to rebel against King Henry the Sixth, he gave it out, that, if he could get the King and Queen into his hands, he would use them honourably; but, if he could lay hands on any of the traytors which were about them, he would take care to see them punished for their misdemeanors. But, in good truth, the end and aim of the rebellion was to depose King Henry and the house of Lancaster, in favour of the title of the Duke of York.

20. Q. What, if the King assaults a subject, or seek to take away his life; may not the subject, in that case, take up arms against him?

A. Yes, if Paræus may be judge, and some of the Genevan doctors, who have so determined. But David's case, which commonly is alledged in defence hereof, if looked on with the eyes of judgment, doth affirm the contrary. For David, though he had a guard of some friends and followers, to save him from the hands of such wicked instruments, as Saul, in his unjust displeasure, might have used against him; yet he preserved himself from Saul, not by resistance, but by flight, by. flitting up and down as the King removed, and approached near him with his armies. For, had he had a thought of war, though defensive merely, it is probable he would have took the opportunities which were offered to him, either of seizing Saul's person, when he had him all alone in the cave of Engeddi; or suffering Abishai to smite him, as he lay asleep in the hill of Hachilah; or, at the least, in making sure of Abner and the host of Saul, who lay sleeping by him. But David was not so well tutored in the art of rebellion, as to secure himself this way, and wanted some of our new masters to instruct him in it. If, from the practice of a pious and religious Jew, we will look down upon the precept of a grave, wise, and learned Gentile, we shall find this rule laid down in Aristotle: El agǹv éxwv áπáražev & det åvтiæλnyñval, That, if the magistrate assault the person of a private subject, the subject may not strike again, nor lift hand against him. Finally, that you may perceive how much all sorts of men do oppose your doctrines, Calvin himself, although no friend to monarchy, doth affirm thus much, Qui privatus manum intulerit, &c. That any private person, of what sort soever, who shall lift up his hand against his sovereign, though a very tyrant, is, for the same, condemned by the voice of God.

21. Q. Perhaps we may so far agree with you, as to disable private persons from bearing arms, and lifting up their hands against Kings, and princes, of their own authority: But think you, that inferior magistrates are not inabled, by their offices, to protect the people, and arm them, if occasion be, in their own defence?

A. It is true, that some divines of the reformed churches, who either lived in popular states, or had their breeding at Geneva, or thought