the discipline, by them defended, could not be otherwise obtruded upon Christian princes, than by putting the sword into the hands of the people, have spared no pains to spread abroad this dangerous doctrine; in which they have not wanted followers in most parts of Christendom. But St. Paul knew of no such matter, when he commanded every soul to yield obedience and subjection to the higher powers, and, upon no occasion, to resist those powers to which the Lord had made them subject. So that, although inferiour magistrates may expect obedience from the hands of those, over whom, and for whose weal and governance, they are advanced and placed by the prince in chief; yet God expects that they should yield obedience to the powers above them, especially to the highest of all, than which there is not any higher. There is a golden chain in politicks, and every link thereof hath some relation and dependence upon that before; so far forth as inferior magistrates do command the people, according to that power, and those instruments which are communicated to them by the supreme prince, the subject is obliged to submit to them, without any manner of resistance. Men of no publick office must obey the constable; the constable is bound to speed such warrants, as the next justice of the peace shall direct unto him; the justices receive the exposition of the law from the mouth of the judges; the judges have no more authority, but what is given them by the King: And thereupon it needs must follow, that though the judges direct the justices, and the justices command the constables, and the constables may call the people to their aid, if occasion be; yet all must yield a free obedience, without reluctancy or resistance, to the King himself. The reason is, because as Kings, or supreme magistrates, are called God's ministers by St. Paul, so the inferior, or subordinate magistrates, are called the King's ministers by St. Peter: Submit yourselves to the King, as unto the supreme; next to such governors as are sent, or authorised, by him, for the punishment of evil-doers. Besides, there is no inferior magistrate, of what sort soever, but, as he is a publick person, in respect of those that are beneath him, so is he but a private man, in reference to the powers above him; and therefore, as a private person, disabled utterly, by your own rules, from having any more authority to resist his sovereign, or bear defensive arms against him, as well as any other of the common people. The government of states may be compared, most properly, unto Porphyry's tree, in which there is one Genus summum, and many Genera subalterna. Now it is well known to every young logician, who hath learnt his Prædicabiles, that Genus subalternum is a species only, as it looks up to those above it, a genus in relation unto these below it. If you have so much logick in you, as to make application of this note to the present case, you will perceive inferior magistrates to be no magistrates at all, as they relate unto the King, the Genus summum in the scale of government, and therefore of no more authority to resist the King, or call the people unto arms, than the meanest subject.

22. Q. If so, then were the Christian subject of all men most miserable, in being utterly deprived of all ways and means, by which to free his country from oppression, and himself from tyranny. And therefore tell me, if you can, what you would have the subject to in

these extremities, in which you have deprived him of all means to relieve himself?

4. That which the Lord himself prescribed, and the saints have practised. When first the Lord acquainted those of the house of Israel, how heavy a yoke their violence and importunity, in asking for a King, had pulled upon them; he told them of no other remedy for so much affliction, but that they should cry out in that day, because of the King whom they had chosen. No casting off the yoke, when we find it grievous, nor any way to make it lighter and more pleasing to us, than either by addressing our complaints to the Lord our God, or tendering our petitions to our lord the King. Kings are accountable to none but God, if they abuse the power which he gives unto them: Nor can we sue them for a trespass in any other court, than the court of heaven. Therefore, when David had defiled the wife, and destroyed the husband, he thought himself responsible for it unto none but God, against whom only he had sinned, as he saith himself. And whereupon St. Ambrose gives this gloss on those words of David, Homini ergo non peccavit, cui non tenebatur obnoxius. David, saith he, confesseth no offence to man, by whom he could not be impleaded; but only unto God, who had power to judge him. St. Gregory of Tours understood this rightly, when he did thus address himself to a King of France, Si quis de nobis, &c. If any of us, O King, do transgress the laws, thou hast power to punish him; but, if thou goest beyond thy limits, who can punish thee? We tell thee of thy faults, as occasion serves, and, when thou listest to give ear, thou dost hearken to us: which, if thou shouldest refuse to do, who shall judge thee for it, but he that calls himself by the name of justice?' And, that you may be sure, that it is no otherwise in England than in France and Jewry, Bracton, a great and famous lawyer of this kingdom, doth affirm expresly, that, if the King proceed not in his government according unto law and right, there is no legal remedy to be had against him. When then is to be done by the injured subject? Locus erit supplicationi quod factum suum corrigat et emendet; quod si non fecerit, satis ei sufficit ad pœnam, quòd Dominum expectet ultorem. All that he hath to do, saith he, is, that he doth petition him for relief and remedy; which, if the King refuse to consent unto, it will be punishment enough unto him, that he must look for vengeance from the hands of God. Which said, he gives this reason for it, because that no man is to call the King's acts in question, Multo fortius contra factum suum venire, Much less, to go about to annul and void them by force and violence.

23. Q. We grant it to be true which you cite from Bracton, as it relates to private and particular men; but think you that it doth concern or oblige the parliament, which is the representative body of the kingdom?

A. Hoc sumus congregati quod et dispersi, as Tertullian tells us of the Christians in another case. We shewed before, that subjects were in no case to resist their sovereigns, in the way of arms, either as private persons or inferior magistrates: and thereupon we may conclude, that the people of this realm, in the diffusive body of it, having no power of levying war, or raising forces to resist the King, without being punish

able for the same, as in case of treason, cannot inable the two houses of parliament, which are the representative body of it, to do those acts, which they want power to do themselves; for no man can confer a power upon any other which is not first vested in himself, according to that good old rule, 'Nemo dat quod non habet.' And therefore, if it be rebellion in the English subject, out of times of parliament, to levy war against the King in his realm, or to adhere unto his enemies, and be aiding to them; I know not how it can excuse the members of the two houses of parliament from coming within the compass of that condemnation, if they commit such acts, in time of parliament, and under the pretence of the power thereof, which are judged treason and rebellion by the laws of England.

24. Q. But Mr. Prynne hath learnedly removed that rub, who tells you, that the statute of 25 Edward III. runs (only) in the singular number, If a man shall levy war against the King, and therefore cannot be extended to the houses, who are many, and publick persons; what can you answer unto that?

A. That Mr. Prynne, having so often shewn malice, may have a little leave sometimes to shew his folly, and make some sport unto the kingdom, in these useful times; for, if his learned observation will hold good in law, it is not possible that any rebellion should be punished in a legal way; because so many (and some of them perhaps may be publick persons) are commonly engaged in actions of that wicked nature. And I suppose that Mr. Prynne, with all his learning, did never read of a rebellion, that is to say, of a war levied by the subject against his sovereign, plotted and executed by one man only, in the singular number. Had Mr. Prynne affirmed on his word and credit, that the members of the two houses were not men but Gods, he had then said somewhat which would have freed them from the guilt and danger of that dreadful statute. If he admit them to be men, and grant them to have levied war against his Majesty, or to be aiding to the rebels now in arms against him; he doth conclude them to be guilty of this great rebellion, with which this miserable kingdom is almost laid desolate. His sophistry, and trim distinctions, touching their quality and numbers, will but little help them..

25. Q. We have another plaister which will salve that sore, viz. The difference that is made between the King's person and his power, by which it is made visible to discerning eyes, that though the parliament have levied war against the person of the King, yet they do not fight against his power, but defend it rather. And it is not a resistance of the person but the power of princes, which is forbidden by St. Paul. How do you like of that distinction ?

A. As ill, or worse than of the other, as being, of the two, the more serious folly; and coming from an author no less factious (but far more learned I confess) than For if I do remember right, other was. your Buchanan was the first that broached, this doctrine in his book, de Jure Regni apud Scotos; in which he tells us, that St. Paul, in the place aforesaid, doth not speak of magistrates, sed de functione et officio eorum qui aliis præsunt, but of the magistracy itself, the function or office of the magistrate, which must not be resisted, though his person may.

Which foolish fancy serving fitly for a cloke or vizard, wherewith to palliate and disguise rebellions, had since been often used by those who pursue his principles (thoug never worn so threadbare as of late, in your treacherous pamphlets) but draweth after it as many, and as gross absurdities as the other did. For by this strange division of the King from himself, or of his person from his power, a traitor may kill Charles, and not hurt the King; destroy the man, and save the magistrate; the power of the King in one of the armies may fight against his person in the other army, his own authority may be used to his own destruction, and one may lawfully set upon him, beat, assault, andwound him, in order to his preservation. So that you make the King like Sosia, in the ancient comedy, who being well beaten, and demanded who it was that did it, made answer, Egomet, memet, qui nunc sunt domi: That Sosia, who was at home in his master's house, did beat that Sosia, which was abroad in his master's business. But questionless St. Paul did better understand himself, than either Buchanan, or any of his followers, since his time, have done: who doth interpret the word, power, which he useth in the first and second verses, by that of principes et minitri, rulers and ministers, which he useth in the third and fourth: which as it plainly shews that he meaneth the magistrate, and not the function or the office, as your masters tell you; so doth it leave you liable to the wrath of God, if you endeavour to defend these wicked and rebellious courses, by such wretched shifts.

25. Q. What say you then, if it appear that the two houses of parliament (for I use your terms) are not subordinate to the King, but coordinate with him? I hope then you will yield so far, that the two houses have a power, if they cannot otherwise provide for the common safety, to arm the people of the realm against him, as against an equal.

A. We grant indeed, that people which have no superior, but stand on equal terms with one another, if injured by their neighbours, and not receiving satisfaction, when they do desire it, may remedy themselves by force, and for so doing, by the law of nations, are esteemed just enemies; but so it is not in the point, which is now in question, The realm of England (as it is declared by act of parliament) being an empire, governed by one supreme head and King, having the dignity and royal estate of the imperial crown of the game, unto whom a body politick, compact of all sorts and degrees of people, divided in terms and by names of spirituality and temporality, be bounden and ought to bear, next to God, a natural and humble obedience.' Assuredly, had the lords and commons, then assembled, conceived themselves coordinate with the King, in the publick government, they would not have so wronged themselves and their posterity, as to have made this declaration and acknowledgment so prejudicial thereunto, not only in a parliament time, but by act of parliament. Besides, if this co-ordination, which you dream of, could be once admitted, it must needs follow thereupon, that though the King had no superior, he hath many equals, and where there is equality, there is no subjection. But Bracton tells you in plain terms, not only that the King hath no superior

in his realm, except God alone, but that he hath no equal, neither : Parem autem non habet in regno suo, as his words there are. And then he gives this reason of it, Quia sic amitteret præceptum, cum par in paren non habet imperium; because he could not have an equal but with the loss of his authority and regal dignity, considering, that an equal hath no power to command another. Now, lest you should object, that is spoken of the King, out of times of parliament, but that, when once the lords and commons are convened in parliament, the case is otherwise: First, you must think that, had this doctrine been on foot in the times preceding, it would have been a great impediment unto frequent parliaments; and that our Kings (as others) being very jealous even of the smallest points of sovereignty, would not admit of partners in the crown imperial, by the assembling of a parliament, having been used to reign alone without any rivals. And, secondly, you may call to mind, that even sedente parliamento, during the sitting of the court, the lords and commons call themselves, his Majesties most humble and obedient subjects, which is not only used as a stile of course in such petitions, as they use to present unto him (and by the way, it is not the use for men of equal power to send petitions unto one another) but it is the very phrase in some acts of parliament, for which I do refer you to the book at large. And if they be his subjects, as they say they be, they cannot be his equals, as you say they are; and therefore not to co-ordinate with him, but subordinate to him; by consequence the levying war against the King is no more excusable in them, than the meanest subject.

27. Q. You take great pains to make the parliament, or the two houses, as you call them, to be guilty of rebellion against his Majesty, without ground or reason: for, tell me seriously, think you the partiament hath not power to arm the people, and put them into a posture of defence against the enemies of the kingdom, if they see occasion?

A. Yes, if the King do give consent, and there be such enemies, against whom to arm them; for, properly, according to the ordinary rules of politicks, there is no power of raising forces, and putting the people into arms, but only in the prince, or supreme magistrate. The civil laws have so resolved it: Nulli prorsus, nobis insciis et inconsultis, quorumlibet armorum movendorum copia tribuatur: Let none presume to levy forces, whatsoever the pretence or occasion be, without our privity or consent, saith the constitution. If you consult with the divines, St. Austin, a most learned father, will inform you thus: That the natural course and arts of government, accommodated to the peace and welfare of us mortal men, do require thus much, Ut suscipiendi. belli auctoritas atque consilium penes principes sit: That all authority of making war, and levying forces, appertain only to the prince. And, if you please to look on Bracton, or any of the lawyers of your native country, they will tell you this: That the material sword is put into the hands of the King by Almighty God; that, by the material sword, is meant a power and right to look to the defence and preservation of the kingdom; and that it is no less than treason to enter into any associa tion, or to raise a war, without the King's consent, or against his wil And this the houses, as it seems, understood full well, when, purposin