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

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

p. 81Thirdly, when any common or publick trust is committed to three or more, though 3of subordinate and different quality, if the trust be either violated or betrayed, the inferiour trustees, may and ought in point of Conscience to resist the other. For instance; if the custody of a City or Ca…tle be committed to a Captaine, Leiutenant, and common Souldiers: or of a ship to the Master, Captaine, and ordinary Mariners: If the Captaine or Master will betray the City, Castle, or ship to the enemie or Pirates; or dismantle the City wals and fortifications to expose it unto danger, or will wilfully run the ship against a rocke to split, wrecke it, and indanger all their lives, freedomes, contrary to the trust reposed in them; or fire or blow up the City, Fort, ship: not onelyonly the Leiutenant Masters Mate, and other inferiour Officers, though subject to their commands, but even the Common Souldiers and Marriners may withstand and forcibly resist them, and are bound in Conscience so to doe, because else they should betray their trust, and destroy the City, Fort, ship, and themselves too, which they are bound by duty and compact to preserve. This case of Law and conscience is so cleare, so common in daily experience that no man doubts it: The care and safety of our Realme by the originall politicke constitution of it, alwayes hath beene and now is, committed joyntly to the king, the Lords, and Commons in Parliament, by the unanimous consent of the whole kingdome. The king the supreame member of it, contrary to the trust and duty reposed in him, through the advise of evill Councellors wilfully betrayes the trust and safety of this great City and ship of the Republicke; invades the inferiour Commanders, Souldiours, Citizens, with an Army: assaults, wounds, flayes, spoyles, plunders, sackes, imprisons his fellow trustees, Souldiers, p. 82Marriners, Citizens, undermines the walls, fires the City, ship, delivers it up to theeves, Pyrates, murtherers, as a common prey, and wilfully runnes this ship upon a rocke of ruin. If the Lords and Commons joyntly intrusted with him, should not in this case by force of Armes resist him, and his unnaturall instruments, (there being no other meanes else of safety left them) they should sinfully and wilfully betray their trust, and be so farre from keeping a good Christian Conscience in not resisting by force, that they should highly sinne against Conscience, against their trust and duty, against their naturall Country, yea and their very Allegiance to the king himselfe, by encouraging him in, and consenting unto these proceedings, which would make him not to be a king, but Tyrant, and destroy him as a king, in the spoyle and ruine of his Kingdome, thereby endangered to be consumed) and tempt God himself: as Pope Nicholas, and**Caus. 23. quest. 8. Suri. Concil. Tom. 3. p. 520. Gratian resolve in these words. If there be no necessity we ought at all times to abstaine from warres, but if inevitable necessity urge us, we ought not to abstaine from warres, and warlike preparations for the defence of our selves, of our Country, and paternall Lawes, no not in Lent, least man should seeme to tempt God, if when he hath meanes, he provide not for his owne and others safety, and prevents not the Detriments of holy religion.

Fourthly, those injuries which Allies and other neighbour States or Princes may with good Conscience repulse with Armes from Subjects wrongfully oppressed, invaded tyrannically by their Soveraignes, or their wicked Instruments, at, or without the Subjects intreaty, when they are unable to relieve themselves: no doubt the Subjects themselves, if able, may with better reason, and as good Conscience resist and repell; because every man isuuLev. 19. 18. Mat. 22. 39. Rom 93. c. 14. 4. 1 Cor. 9. 27. Phil. 2. 12. 1 Tim. 5. 8Lev 19:18Matt 22:391 Cor 9:27Phil 2:121 Tim 5:8 nearer, and more oblieged to defend and preserve himselfe and those of his owne Nation, Religion, blood, then strangers are, and may with lesse publick danger, inconvenience, and more speede effect it, then Forraigners: but Allies and Forraigne Neighbour States and Princes, asxxDist. 23. qu. 3. to 8. Gratian (out of the 5. Councell of Carthage; Augustine, Ambrose, Hier…m, Anastatius, Calistus and other)yyDe Iure BelL. l. 1. c. 14. 15. 16. Albericus Gentilis, zzCommonweale. l. 2. c. 5. l. 5. c. 6. Sect. l. 3. ^a 2. c 25. Sect. 4. 5. 6.Iohn Bodin, Hug… Grotius, and Generally all Canonists, Casuists, Schoolemen accord, may in many cases with good conscience, by force of Arms repulse from Subjects wrongfully oppressed, invaded, and tyrannically abused, the injuries offered them by their Soveraignes; and that either at, and in some cases without the Subjects intreaty: Which they prove by Moses his slaying the Aegyptian that oppressed the Hebrew, Exod. 2. 11. to 15. by Ioshua his ayding of the Gibeonites against the five Kings that made war against them, Iosh. 10. by the example of Iehoshaphat, 1 Kin. 22, 2 Kings 3. Of the chiefe Captaines securing Paul with a gard of Souldiers against the Iews who had vowed his death, Acts 23. by Abrahams rescuing Lot, Gen. 14. by sundry ancient and late Examples in story. Therfore Subjects themselvs no doubt if able, may with good reason and conscience, lawfully resist, and repell their Princes invading Forces, though accompanied, assisted with his personall presence.

Fifthly, It is yeelded by all Divines, Lawyers, Canonists, Schoolemen;bbCajetan. …a. …ae. qu. …. ar. 1. Ambrose, Offic. l. 1. c. 36. Summa Angelica, Rosella & Sylvester, Tit. Bellum, and the Glossers on Gratian. Causa. 23. qu. 3. asccCaus. 23. qu. 1. 2. Gratian, dd…a. 2ae. qu. …0. art. 10. & qu. 64. ar. 7. dub. 4.Ban…es, eel. 4. disp. 5. art. 10. l. 5 qu. 1 art. 8.S…to, fflib. 11 c 9. du. 8.Lessius, ggl▪ 1. Contr. Illust. 18.Vasquius, hhP. 3. 1. … n 2.Covaruvi…s, ii2. 2ae. qu. 64. art. 1.Aquinas, kkVerbo Bellum, par. 1. n. 3. & p 2. & Homicidium. 3. q. 4.Sylvester, llad l. ut vim. Di de Iust. & …ure.Bartolus, mmIn rep. l. 1. & unde vi.Baldus, nnl. …. c. 3. n. 147.Navarre, ooDe Iure Bel. l. 1. c. 13. 14.Albericus Gentilis, ppDe Iure Bel. l. 2. c. 1….Grotius and others, that private men by the Law of God, and nature, may in defence of their lives, chastities, principall members, and estates, lawfully resist all those who forcibly assault them, to deprive them thereof; yea and slay them to, unlesse they be publicke persons of eminencie, by whose slaughter the Commonweale should sustaine much prejudice, whose lives in such p. 83cases must not be willingly hazzarded, though their violence be resisted: which is cleerely prooved by Iudges 11. 8. 15. to 18. 1 Sa…. 17 41. to 53. Deut. 22. 26. 27. since therefore all these are apparently indangered by an invasive warre and Army, more then by any private assaults; and no ayde, no assistance or protection against the losse of life, chastitie, estate, and other violences, injuries which accompany wars can be expected from the Lawes, or Prince himself (the fountaine of this injustice,) or legall punishments inflicted on the malefactors, whose armed power being above the reach of common justice, and injuries countenanced, abetted, authorised by the Soveraigne who should avenge and punish them, every subject in particular, and the whole state in Parliament assembled in generall, may and ought in point of conscience joyntly and severally to defend themselves, their neighbours, brethren, but especially their native Countrey, Kingdome, whose generall safety is to be preferred before the lives of any particular persons, how great or considerable soever, which may be casually hazarded by their owne wilfulnesse, though not purposely endangered or cut off in the defensive incounter, by those who make resistance. And if (according toqq2 2. Ar. 6. 7. q 2. Card. qu. 33. li 1. Pet…. Nau. l. 11. c. 3. n. 147 Grotius. de lure Belli. l. 2. c. 1. Sect. 4. Cajetan and other Schoolemen,) Innocents which onelyonly casually hinder ones …light from a mortall enemie may be lawfully with good conscience slaine by the party pursued, in case where he cannot else possibly escape the losse of his owne life, because every mans ownelife is dearer to him then anothers, which he here takes away onelyonly to preserve his ownelife, without any malicious murtherous intent, though others doubt of this case: or if innocent persons set perforce in the front of unjust assailants (as by the Cavalleir…s at Brainford and elsewhere,) to prevent defence, and wrong others with more securitie and lesse resistance, may casually be slain, (though not intentionally) by the defensive party (as I thinke they may) for prevention of greater danger and the publicke safety;rrSee the Relation of Brainford. then certainely those of publicke place and Note; who wilfully and unnaturally set themselves to ruine their Country, Liberty, Religion, Innocent brethren (who onelyonly act the defensive part,) and voluntarily intrude themselves into danger, may questionlesse with safe conscience be resisted, repulsed: in which if they casually chance to lose their lives without any malice or ill intention in the defe…dants, it being onelyonly through their owne default, such a casuall accident when it happens, or the remote possibility of it in the combate before it begins, cannot make the resistance either unjust or unlawfull in point of conscience; for then such a possibility of danger to a publike person should make all resistance unlawfull, deprive the Republicke wholly of this onelyonly remedy against tyrannicall violence, and expose the whole common-weale to ruine, whose weale and safety, is to be preferred before the life or safety of any one member of it whatsoever.

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

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

The first out of the Old Testament,Obj…ct. 1. is that of Numb. 16.uuDr Ferne Sect. 2. p. 10. Korah, Dathan, and Abiram for their insurrection against that very divine Authority which God himselfe had delegated to Moses and Aaron, without any injury or injustice at all once p. 84offered to them or any assault upon them. Ergo (marke the Non-sence of this argumentation) no Subjects may lawfully take up meere necessary defensive Armes in any case to resist the bloody Tyrannie, Oppression, and outrages of wicked Princes, or their Cavalleires, when they make warre upon them to destroy or enslave them.

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

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

I answer,Answ. the first text pertaines properly to Judges and other sorts of Rulers, not to Kings, not then in being among the Israelites: the second, to rich men as well as Kings. They may as well argue then from these texts: that no Iudges nor underrulers, nor rich men whatsoever, though never so unjust or wicked, may or ought in conscience to be resisted in their unjust assaults, Riots, Robberies, no though they be bent to subvert Religion, Lawes, Liberties: as that the King and his Souldiers joyntly or severally considered, may not be resisted: yea, these acute disputants may argue further by this new kinde of Logicke: Christians are expresly prohibited to curse or revile any man whatsoever, under paine of damnation, Rom. 12. 14. Mat. 5… 44. Levit. 19. 14. Numb. 23. 7. 8. 2 Sam. 16. 9. Levit. 20. 9. c. 24. P 1. 14. 23. Levit. 20. 9:▪ Prov. 20. 20. 1 Cor. 6. 10. 1 Cor. 4. 12. 1 Pet. 2. 23. Iude 9. Ergo, we ought to resist no man whatsoever, (no not a theefe that would rob us, cut-throate Cavaleers that would murther us, lechers that would ravish us) under paine of damnation. What pious profitable Doctrine, thinke you, is this: All cursings and railings are simply unlawfull in themselves: all resistance is not so, especially that necessary we now discourse of, against unlawfull violence to ruine Church and State. To argue therefore, all resistance is simply unlawfull, because cursing and reviling (of a different nature) are so, is ill Logicke, and worse Divinity. If the objectors will limit their resi…tance, (to make the Argument sensible,) and propose it thus: All cursing and r… viling p. 85of Kings and Rulers for executing justice impartially (for so is the chiefe intendment of the place objected, delinquents being apt to clamour against those who justly censure them) is unlawfull; Ergo the forcible resisting of them in the execution of justice and their lawfull authority is unlawfull: the sequell I shall grant, but the Argument will be wholy impertinent, which I leave to the Objectors to refine.

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

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

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

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

The second, this: The king may lawfully do whatsoever pleaseth him Ergo, neither are He, or his Forces to be resisted▪ To which I answer, that this verse relates onelyonly unto God, the next antecedent; who onelyonly doth and may doe what he pleaseth, and that both in heaven and earth, Psal. 135. 6. Psal. 115. 3 Esay 46. 10. not to Kings who neither may nor can doe what they please in either, being bound both by the Laws of God, man, and their Coronation Oathes (perchance the oath of God here meant, rather then that of supremacie or alleigance) to doe rrSam. 23. 30. Esay 32. 1. c. 16. 5. c. 9. 7. 2 Chron. 9. 8.Isa 32:12 Chr 9:8onelyonly what is lawfull and just, not what themselves shall please. But admit it meant of Kings, not God: First the text saith not, that a king may lawfully doe what he pleaseth: but he doth whatsoever pleaseth him: Solom…n himselfess1 King. c. 11. & 12. 2 Chr. c 9 & 10. & 11. N…h. 13. 26.1 Kgs 112 Chr 9 committed idolatry, built Temples for Idolatrous worship, served his idolatrous wives Gods, married with many idolatrous wives, greivously oppressed his people, &c. for which God threatned to rent the kingdome from himself, as he did the ten Tribes from his son, for those sinnes of his:tt2 Sam. c. 11. & 12. & 34.2 Sam 11 David committed adultery, and wilfully numbred the people; and what King Ieroboam, Manasseh, p. 86Ahab, other wicked Kings have done, out of the pleasure and freedome of their lawlesse wills, to the infinite dishonour of God, the ruine of themselves, their posterities, Kingdomes, is sufficiently apparent inuuIn the bookes of Kings, Chronicles, Ieremiab, and Daniel. Scripture: was all therefore just, lawfull, unblameable, because they did herein whatsoever they pleased, not what was pleasing to God? If not, as all must grant: then your foundation failes; that Kings may lawfully doe whatsoever they will; and Solomons words must be taken all together not by fragments; and these latter words coupled with the next preceeding; Stand not in an evill matter: and then Pauls words will well interpret his, Rom. 13. 4. But if thou doe that which is evill be afraid, for he beareth not the sword in vaine, for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon them that doe evill. So that the genuine sence of the place is, and must be this. Stand not in an evill matter, for the king hath an absolute power to doe whatsoever he pleaseth, in way of justice to punish thee, if thou continue obstinate in thy evill courses; to pardon thee, if thou confesse, submit, and crave pardon for them. Ergo, the king and his Cavalleeres have an absolute power to murther, plunder, destroy his Subjects, subvert Religion, and he and his Forces must not herein be resisted, is an ill consequent from such good premises.

The third is this: Where the word of a King is, there is power, **See Cassanaeus. Catal. Gloriae Mundi, pars 5. consid. 24. sect. 62. p. 222.and who may say unto him what dost thou? (that is, expostulate with, censure him for doing justly, as Iob 34. 17. 18. 19. expound it,) Ergo the king or his Forces may not be resisted in any case: they might rather conclude. Therefore neither Kingdome nor Parliament, nor any Subject or person whatsoever ought to demand of the king, to what end, or why he hath raised Forces and Armed Papists against the Parliament, and Protestant Religion? These Court-Doctors might as truely conclude from hence; If the king should command us to say Masse in his Chappell, or our Parishes, to adorne Images, to turne professed Masse-priests, &c. to vent any Erronious Popish Doctrines; to pervert the Scriptures to support Tyrannie and lawlesse cruelty: we must and will (as some of us doe) cheerefully obey; for where the word of a King is, there is power, and we may not say unto him, what dost thou? If a King should violently ravish matrons, defloure virgins; unnaturally abuse youth, cut all his Subjects throates, fire their houses, sacke their Cities, subvert their liberties; and (asxxDe …ontif. Rom. l. 4. Bellarmine puts the case of the Popes absolute irresistible authority) send millions of soules to hell; yet no man under paine of damnation, may or ought to demande of him, Domine cur ita facis? Sir, what doe you? But was this the holy Ghosts meaning thinke you, in this place? If so, thenyy2 Sam. 12. 7. &c.2 Sam 12:7 Nathan was much to blame for reprehending king Davids Adultery, zz2 Chro. 17. 17. 18. 19. 20.2 Chr 17:172 Chr 17:182 Chr 17:192 Chr 17:20Azariah and the 40. Priests who withstood King Vzziah when he would have offered incens…, on the incense Altar, and thrust him out of the Temple, telling him, it pertaineth not to thee Vzziah, to burne incense to the Lord, &c. Were no lesse then Traytors. Iohn Baptist was much over-seene to tell King Herod, It is not lawfull for thee to have thy brothers wife. The Prophet who sharpely reprehended Amaziah for his Idolatry and new altar, 2 Chron 25. 15. 16. was justly checked by the king, El…iah was to be rebuked, for telling Ahab so plainely of his faults, aa1 King 18. 17. 18.1 Kgs 18:171 Kgs 18:18and sending such a harsh message to King Abaziah; Elisha much to be shent for using such harsh language to King Iehoram, 2 Kings 3. 13. 14. yea Samuel and Hanani deserved the strappado for telling King Saul, and Asa, That they had done foolishly, … Sam. 13 3. 2 Chron. 15. 9.bb2. King. 1. 3. 4. 16.2 Kgs 1:32 Kgs 1:42 Kgs 1:16 The meaning therefore of this Text, so much mistaken, (unlesse we will censure all these Prophets, and have Kings not onelyonly irresistible but irreprehensible for their wickednesse) is onelyonly this: No man may presume to question the kings just actions, warranted by his lawfull royall power: (this text being parallel with Rom. 13. 1. 2. 3. 4) What then? Ergo, None must question or resist his, or his Cavalleers unjust violence and proceedings, (not the Parliament the supremest Iudicature and Soveraigne Power in the Kingdome) is a ridiculous consequence: yet this is all this Text doth contribute to their present dying bad cause.

p. 89The 5.Object. 5. is that usually objected Text ofccAn Appeal to thy Conscience, p. 4. c. Answer of the Vindication of P…. 105. 14, 15 and the Revindication printed at Cambridge, 1…43. Psal. 105. 14, 15. Touch not mine annointed. Ergo the King and his Cavaleers must not be so much as touched nor …esisted, I wonder they did not as well argue, Ergo none must henceforth kisse his Majesties hand (si…ce it cannot be done without touching him,) neither must his Barber trim him, nor his Bedchamber… men attire him, for feare of high Treason in touching him: And the Cavaleers must not henceforth be arrested for their debts, apprehended for their robberies and murthers; neither must the Chyrurgi…n dresse their wounds, or pock-soars, or otherwise touch them, (so dangerous is it to touch them, not out of fear of infection, but) for fear of transgressing this sacred Text, scarce meant of such unhallowed God-dammee…. Such conclusions had been more literall and genuine then the first.

But to answer this long since exploded triviall Objection, not named by Dr Ferne, Answ.though revived by others since him. I say first, that this Text concernes not kings at all, but the true anoynted Saints of God their Subjects, whom kings have been alwayes apt to oppresse and persecute, witnesse Psal. 2. …. &c. Act 4. 26. 27. Act. 12. 1, 2, 3 with all sacred and Ecclesiasticall Histories, ancient or moderne. This is most apparent; first, because these words were spoken by God to Kings themselves, as the Text is expresse, Psal 105 14, 15. 1 Chron. 16. 20. 21. He suffered no man to do them wrong, but reproved even KINGS for their sak…s saying, (even to king themselves, namely to king Pharaoh, an king Abimelech, Gen. 12. 10. to 20. Chap. 20. and 26 1. to 17. 29) Touch not mine Anointed, and do my Prophets no harm: Therefore not meant of kings. Secondly, because these words were spoken directly and immediately of Abraham, Isaac, Iacob, their wives and families, as it is evident by Verse 6. the whole series of the Psalme, which is Historicall; the forecited Te…ts of Genesis to which the words relate, the punctuall confession of Augustine, and all other Expositors on this Psalm; Now neither they, nor their wives, nor their children clearly, were actuall, much lesse anointed Kings; For first, they lived long before the government of kings was erected among the Israelites, of whomdd1 Sam. 8. & 9. & 10. see 1 Chron. 1. 43.1 Sam 81 Chr 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 pri…ate 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 onelyonly of their own small families, and that under forraign Kings▪ therfore doubtlesse no kings at all. Fourthly, this was spoken of these Patriarchs Wives and Families, as well as of themselves, (and they certainly were no kings, unlesse you will have kingdoms consisting onelyonly of kings, and no subjects at all) Verse 12. 14. Gen. 12. 15. to 20. Chap. 20. 2. to 17. Chap. 26. 11. Chap. 34. 30. Chap. 35. 6. Fifthly, the Scripture no where calls them kings, much lesse the Text, which terms them expresly Prophets, Touch not mine Anointed, and do MY PROPHETS (not properly so taken, but largely, that is, My servants, my chosen people, as Verse 6. expounds it) no harm: The later Clause, Do my Prophets no harm, being an exact interpretation of the former, Touch not mine Anointed, that is, My Prophets and Servants, so far forth as to doeeSee Zeph. 2. 8. Gen. 20. 6. Iob 1. 11. c. 2. 5. c. 19. c. 5. 19. c. 1…. 14. Gen. 26. …. 29. Ier. 12. 14. 1 Ioh. 5. 18.Zeph 2:8Gen 20:6Job 1:11Gen 26Jer 12:141 John 5:18 them harm; For in a common sence, no doubt, they ffMatth. 8. 3. 15 c. 17 7. Mar. 6. 56. Luk. 8. 45, 46, 47Matt 8:3Matt 8:15Mark 6:56Luke 8:45Luke 8:46Luke 8:47might be touched without offence to God or them, by way of imbracement, assistance, and the like. p. 90Sixtly, Though there were kings in Abrahams dayes or before, as is evident by Gen. 14. 1, 2, &c. yet there were no anointed kings, nor were kings ever called Gods anointed till Sauls dayes, who was the first anointed King I read of, 1 Sam. 10. 1. and the first king ever stiled, The Lords Anointed, 1 Sam. 12. 3, 5. whereas Priests were anointed long before, Exodus 30. 30. Chap. 40. 13, 15. Therefore Anointed in the Text cannot be meant of kings, or of persons actually anointed, but onelyonly of those Saints of God, who were metaph…rically and spiritually anointed, having the gifts and graces of Gods Spirit, Psal. 28, 8, 9. Hab. 3. 13. 2. Cor. 1. 21. 1 Iohn 2. 27. Eze. 16. 9. Isay 20. 27. This Text then being not meant of kings which are actually, but of Christians onelyonly spiritualy anointed, in regard of which anointing (as I haveggThe Vindication and Revindication of Psal. 105▪ 14, 15Ps 105:14Ps 105:15 elsewhere largely manifested) they are in Scripture, not onelyonly stiled Christians (which in plain English is annoynted) Acts 11. 26. c. 26. 26. 1 Pet. 4. 16. but Christ (in the abstract) 1 Cor. 12. 12. Ephes. 4. 12, 13. the Members, Body, Flesh and Bones of Christ. 1 Cor. 12. 12, 7. Ephes. 1. 22. 23. c. 5. 29, 30, 31. Col. 1. 24. Yea, Kings and Priests unto God the Father: Exod. 19. 6. 1 Pet. 2. 5. Revel. 1. 6. c. 5. 10. c. 20. 6. for whom God hath prepared a heavenly Kingdom, (wherein they shall reign with Christ for ever) with an everlasting Crown of glory too, Matth. 5. 3. c. 25. 34. Luke 6. 20. c. 12. 32. c. 22. 29. 30. Col. 1. 13. 2 Thess. 2. 12. 1 Corinth. 9. 25. 2 Tim. 2. 12. c. 4. 8. Heb. 12. 28. 2 Pet. 5. 4. 2 Pet. 1. 11. Iam. 2. 5. Revel. 22. 5. The proper argument then that can be thence deduced by our Opposites, is but this Nonsequitur.

Kings themselves must not touch Gods spiritually annointed Saints and servants to do them harm; Ergo, if Kings do violently and unjustly make warre upon them, not onelyonly to harm, but plunder, murther, destroy them utterly, extirpate that Religion they professe and are bound to maintain, they are obliged in point of conscience, under pain of damnation, not to resist; Whereas the conclusion should be directly contrary. Therefore they may lawfully with good conscience resist them to the uttermost, in such cases: For since God hath thus directly enjoyned Kings, Not to touch, or do them harm; if Kings will wilfully violate this injunction, they may with safe conscience, by forc… of Arms withstand, repulse, their unjust violence, and hinder Kings or their instruments from doing them that iniury which God himself prohibits; else they should be accessories to their kings iniustice, and authors of their own wrongs, according to these received Maximes;hhGr…tian. causa. 23. qu. 3, …, 5, 6. Where many Fathers are cited, to this purpose. Quinon pohibet malum quod potest, jubet; Qui potest obviare & perturbare perversos & non facit, nihilest aliud quam favere eorum impietati: Nec caret scrupulo societatis occultae, qui manifesto facinori desinit obviare. Qui definit obviare cum potest, consentit: used by Ambrose, Hierome, Augustine, Isiodor, Anastatius, and Gratian, who recites, applies them to defensive wars. And if our Opposites (who pervert this Text by translating it from Subjects and Saints, to Kings) may in their erronious sence safely argue thence, That if subiects take up Arms against their Princes, contrary to this Text, their Princes may by vertue of this precept, iustly resist them with force, and repulse their iniuries; then by the true genuine sence thereof (being meant of Subiects, Saints, not Kings) if Kings will violently assault and make war upon Saints, their Subiects, to harm them, they may with as good reason and conscience defend themselves against their Kings and ill Instruments, as their Kings protect themselves in this sort against them, and that by authoritie of this Text, by our Opposites own argumentation.

Thirdly, admit this Scripture meant of Kings, yet what str…ngth is there in it to priviledge p. 91them from iust necessary resistance? If any, it must rest in the word annointed; but this will afford kings no such corporall priviledges as many fancie, neither from lawfull resistance, nor deposition, nor sentence of death it self, which I shall undeniably evidence to refute a commonly received errour: For, first, it is apparent, that the anointed here meant, are such onelyonly who are spiritually annointed, either with the externall profession and ceremonies of Gods true religion, or with the internall graces of the Spirit; for neither Abraham, Isaac, Iacob, nor their families (nor any kings or Priests in their dayes) for ought we finde, were corporally annointed. Besides, the annointing here intended, is that which is common toiiExod. 30. 30 c. 40 13, 15. Levit. 4. 3. 16. 1 King. 19. 16.Exod 30:30Lev 4:3Lev 4:161 Kgs 19:16 Priests and Prophets (as Touch not mine annointed, and do my Prophets no harm, infallibly proves) rather then that which is peculiar to kings. Whence I thus argue, That annoin…ing which is common to subiects as well as kings, and cannot secure any subiects, who in the genuinesence of the Text, are Gods annointed, from iust resistance, corporall violence, legall censures, or death, cannot in or of it self alone secure kings from any of these, no further then it secures subiects: for the annoiting being the same in both, must have the self-same operation and immunities in both. But this anointing in subiects can neither exempt their persons from necessary iust resistance, if they unlawfully assault or war upon their Superiours, equalls, inferiours; nor free them from arrests, imprisonments, arraignments, deprivations, or capitall censures, if they offend and demerit them, as we all know by kkEccles. 92. 6. 8. 14. Ezech. 18. 24, 26. Ioh. 16. 2.Ezek 18:24Ezek 18:26John 16:2Scripture and experience: Therefore it can transfer no such corporall immunities or exemptions from all or any of these, to kings; but onelyonly, exempt them from unlawfull violence and injuries, in point of right, so far forth, as it doth other Subjects. In a word, this annointing being common to all Christians, can give no speciall Prerogative to Kings, but onelyonly such as are common to all Subiects, as they are Christians. Secondly, admit it be mean of an actuall externall anoynting, yet that of it self affords Kings no greater priviledge then the inward unction, of which it is a type, neither can it priviledge them from just resistance, or just corporall censures of all sorts. First, it cannot priviledge them from the iust assaults, invasions, resistance, corporall punishments of other forraign kings, Princes, States, Subiects not subordinate to them, who upon any iust cause or quarrell may lawfully resist, assault, wound, apprehend, imprison, slay, depose, iudge, censure forraigne kings, even to death; as is apparent byllPsal. 136. 19, 20. Num. 21. 2… 33, 34, 35.Ps 136:19Ps 136:20Num 21:2 S…hon King of the Amorites, and Og the k…ng of Bashan, slain, the King of mmIosh▪ 8. 29▪Josh 8:29Ai hanged by Ioshua, thennIosh. 10. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26.Josh 10:22Josh 10:23Josh 10:24Josh 10:25Josh 10:26 five kings of Canaan that besieged Gibeon, on whose ne-ks Ioshua made his men of war to put their feet, then smote, slew, and hanged them upon five trees. Who also assaulted, resisted, imprisoned, condemned, slew, executed divers otherooIosh. 10. 42. c. 11. & 12. 7. … 24.Josh 10:42 kings of Canaan, to the number of thirty one in all; by kingppIudg, 1, 26, to 76▪ Adonibezek, qqIudg, 3, to 26Eglon, rr1 Sam. 15, 32, 33.1 Sam 15:321 Sam 15:33Agag, with other Heathen Kings, imprisoned, stabbed, hewen in pieces by the I…raelites. If any obiect, These kings were not actually annoynted, which they cannot prove, since ssIsay, 45, 1.Cyrus an Heathen King, is stiled Gods annoynted; no doubt Saul was an annoynted King, if not the first in the world, 1 Sam. 10. 1. yet he was justly resisted, wounded, pursued by the Philistines, 1 Sam. 31. 3.**2 Chro. 35.2 Chr 35 Iosiah an annoynted good King, was slain by Pharaoh Necho King of Egypt, whom he rashly encountred;tt1 King. 22, 34, 35.1 Kgs 22:341 Kgs 22:35 King Ahab was slain by an Archer of the King of Assyria, uu2 King 9, 22 27.2 Kgs 9:22King Ioram and Ahaziah were both slain by Iehu, by Gods command; xx2 Chr. 31. 1, 6, 7.2 Chr 31:12 Chr 31:62 Chr 31:7Iehoaaz was deposed by the King of Egypt, yy2 Ki. 25. 6, 7Iehoiakim and Iehoiakin both deposed, fettered and kept prisoners by the King of Babylon; p. 92who alsoyy2 Ki. 25. 6, 7 apprehended, deposed, judicially condemned King Zedechiah, put out his eyes, and sent him prisoner to Babylon bound with fetters of brasse. Sozz2 Chron, 33. 11, 1…. Manasses was deposed, bound with fetters of brasse, and carryed captive by the Captaines of the King of Assyria. aa2 King. 14. 13.2 Kgs 14:13Amaziah King of Iudah was taken prisoner by Iehoash King of Israel. Infinite are the presidents in stories, where kings of one Nation in just warrs, have been assaulted, invaded, imprisoned, deposed, slain, by Princes and Subjects of another Nation; and that justly, as all grant without exception; neither their annointing, nor Kingship being any exemption or priviledge to them at all in respect of forraigners, in cases of hostility, to whom they are no Soveraigns, no more then to any of their Subjects. Whereas if this royall annointing did make their persons absolutly sacred and inviolable, no forraign Princes or Subjects could justly apprehend, imprison, smite, wound, slay, depose, or execute them. Secondly, Kings who are suborordinate bbSee M. Seldens Titles of Honour. l. 1 c. 3 s…ct. 1. 2. Bodin Commonw. l. 1. c. 3. l. 2. c. 5. Ioseph De Bello Iudaico, l. 1. c. 10. 15.Homagers and Subjects to other Kings or Emperours, though annointed, may for Treasons and Rebellions against them, be lawfully resisted, assaulted, imprisoned, deposed, judged to death and executed, because as to them they are but Subjects, notwithstanding their annointing, as appears by sundry presidents in our own and forraign Histories; and is generally confessed by the learned. Thirdly, the Roman, Greek and German Emperours, though annointed, the ancient Kings of France, Spain, Arragon, Britain, Hungary, Poland, Denmarke, Bohemia, India, Sparta, and other places (who were not absolute Monarchs) have in former ages been lawfully resisted imprisoned, deposed, and some of them judicially adjudged to death and executed by their owne Senates, Parliaments, Di…ts, States, for their oppression, mal-administration, tyranny, and that justly, asccCommonw. l. 2. c 5. Bodin, ddDe Iure Belli l. 1. c. 3. sect. 11. 16.Grotius, with others affirm, notwithstanding any pretence that they were annointed Soveraigns. Fourthly, Popes, Bishops and Priests anciently were, and at this present in the Romish Churches are actually annointed as well as Kings; and we know theeeIn the…r …itles and Contro…rsies de Immunitate Clericorum, Bishop Latimers Sermon at Stamford, f. 67. b. Popish Clergy and Canonists have frequently alledged this Text, Touch not mine annointed and doe my Prophets no harme, in Councels, Decretalls and solemn debates in Parliament, to prove their exemption from the arrests, judgements, capitall censures and proceedings of Kings and secular Iudges for any crimes whatsoever, because (forsooth) they were Gods annointed, intended in this Text, not Kings; therefore Kings and Seculars must not touch, nor offer any the least violence to their persons, no not in a way of justice. By colour of this Text they exceedingly deluded the world in this particular for hundreds of yeeres. But in the seventh yeer of Hen. the 8. inffKeilwayes Reports, f. 181. Dr. Standish his case debated before a Committee of both Houses of Parliament, and all the Iudges of England, this Text being chiefly insisted on to prove the Clergies exemption, Jure Divino, was wholly exploded in England, and since that in Germany, France, other Realms; and notwithstanding its protection, many ggSee par. 1. p …8. & Fox Act & Monuments.Popes, Bishops, and Clergy-men in all Kingdomes, ages, for all their annointing, have for their misdemeanors not only been resisted, apprehended, imprisoned, but deprived, degraded, hanged, quartered burned, as well as other men (Yeahh1 King. 2. 2…, 27.1 Kgs 2:21 Kgs 2:27 Abiathar the High Priest was deposed by Salomon for his Treason against him, notwithstanding his Annointing;) their annointing giving them not the smallest immunity to doe ill, or not to suffer all kinds of corporall, capitall punishments for their misdemeanors. If this actuall annointing then, cannot lawfully exempt or secure Priests and Prelates persons, nor the Pope himselfe from the premises, how then can it justly priviledge the persons of Kings? Fif…hly, among the Papists all infants, either in their p. 93baptisme, or confirmation are actually annointed with their consecrated iiSee Claudius Esponcaeus Dig…s. in Po… …pist. ad Tim. de C…rismatis usu. p. 261. &c.Chrisme, and withkkEspencaeus Ibid. See I homas waldensis, Bellarmine and others, De Sacramento extremae unstiouis, and all Schoolmen and Canonists, De Sacrame…torum Numero & Extre. unct. extream unction to boot at last cast, which they makellCatalog Gloriae Mundi, par. 5. Consid. 35. p. 249. Alber. de Ros. Super G. of Rubr. F. desta. ho. a Sacrament, and so a thing of more divine soveraign Nature then the very annointing of Kings at their inauguration, which they repute no Sacrament, as being no where commanded by God: But neither of these actuall unctions, exempt all or any of those annointed with it from resistance, or any corporall punishments, or just censures of any kind; therefore the very annointing of Kings cannot doe it. Sixthly, the Ceremony of annointing kings, asmmCassan…us Ibid. & Consid. 29. Cassanaeus with others write, is peculiar onelyonly to the German Emperor, the King of Ierusalem, the King of France, the King of England, and the King of Sicily; but to no other kings else, who are neither annointed nor crowned, as he affirmes; so that it cannot give any priviledge at all to any but onelyonly to these 4. not other kings, who are not anointed Now seeing only these 4. kings are actually anointed, yea lawfull Kings and their persons sacred, even before they are annointed or crowned, and other kings persons (as of Spain, Hungary, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, &c.) who are not annointed, are as sacred, as exempt from danger, as those who are enoyled; And seeing the annointing of kings is at this day a meer arbitrary humane Ceremony, not injoyned by divine authority, nor common to all Kings, who are nnCook 7. Report. Calvins case f. 11. Philoch. Arch. De Somnio Vcr …, c. 171.Kings before their Coronations, it is most certain and infallible, that this enoyling in and of it selfe derives no personall Prerogatives or Immunities at all to kings, much lesse an absolute exemption from all actuall resistance in cases of unjust invasions on their Subjects, or from the censures of their Parliaments for publike distructive exorbitances, as most have hitherto blindly beleeved.

Neither will the frequent next objected speeches of David concerning Saul, impeach the premises, 1 Sam. 24. 6. 10. c. 26. 9. 11. 23. & 2 Sam. 1. 12. 16. The Lord forbid that I should do this thing unto my Master the Lords Annointed, to stretch forth my hand against him, seeing he is the Lords Annointed. I will not put forth my hand against my Lord, for he he is the Lords annointed. And David said to Abishai, Destroy him not, for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Annointed, and be guiltlesse? The Lord forbid that I should stretch forth my hand against the Lords Annoynted. The Lord delivered thee into my hand to day, but I would not stretch forth mine hand against the Lords Annointed. How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thy hand against the Lords Annointed? Thy blood shall be upon thy head, for thy mouth hath testified that thou hast slain the Lords Annointed. Which severall Texts seem at first sight to insinuate, that Sauls very externall annointing was that which did secure his person from assauls and violence; and that it is unlawfull even by way of defence, forcibly with A…mes to resist a persecuting unjustly invading king, because he is annointed.

But these Texts, if duly pondered, will warrant neither of these conclusions. First then, I answer,Object. 6. that Sauls bare annointing,Answ. considered as an externall Ceremony to declare him a lawfull King, did not, could not adde any immunity to his person against Davids, or any other Subjects justviolent resistance, as the premised reasons manifest; but it was onelyonly his royall Soveraign Office conferred on him by God and the people, to which his externall annointing by Samuel was but a Preparation: That which made Saul, with other his successours, a king, was not his bare annointing. Foroo1 Sam. 10…. 1, 2. 24.1 Sam 10:11 Sam 10:21 Sam 10:24 Saul himselfe was annointed by Samuel, before he was made and chosen King, not when he was made King. Sopp1 Sam. 16. 1. to 14.1 Sam 16:1–14 David, qq1 king. 19. …. 16.Hazael, rr1 king. 19. 16. 2 king. 9. 1. to 8.Iehu, with others, were annointed before they were actuall Kings, and many of their Successors by p. 94descent, were reall kings before they were annointed; some of them being not annointed at all for ought we read: therefore their unction made them not kings, since neither simply necessary, nor essentiall to their being kings. Nor did Sauls annointing only, preceding his Regality, make his person sacred, or any other kings persons; for then it would follow, That if Saul had not been actually annointed, or had continued king for some yeeres without this annointing, then David in such a case might lawfully have slain him, without check of conscience, and that the persons of kings not at all annointed; and of hereditary kings before their Coronations, till they are annointed, should not be sacred, nor exempt from violence; which is both false and perillous to affirm; but it was his Soveraign Royall Authority over David (then his Son-in-law, Servant, Subject) which restrained him from offering violence to his person. Saul then being thus priviledged, not because he was annointed, but because he was an annointed king, and that not quatenus Annointed, but quatenus King; the true sense and genuine interpretation of these Texts must be, That Sauls person was sacred, exempt from his Subjects violence, not because he was annointed, as if that only did priviledge him; but because he was a lawfull kingss1 Sa. 15, 16, 17. c. 10. 1, 2, 4.1 Sam 15:161 Sam 15:17 appointed by the Lord himselfe, thett1 Sam. 12, 13. c. 15. 13, c. 1… 1. 1 Chro. 28. 4.1 Sam 12:131 Chr 28:4 Lords annointed, being but a periphrasis, or forme of speech, wherein the Ceremony of annointing, is used for the Regality, or kingly power it selfe, declared not conferred by annointing, and in plain words without any figure, it is put for, the Lords King, that is, a King appointed by the Lord; in which sence God calls Christ vvPsal. 2. 6. Psal. 18. 50.Ps 2:6Ps 18:50my King; and David stiles himselfe (x) Gods King. Sauls Royall Authority without his annointing, not his annointing, predestinating him to his Authority being the ground of this his immunity from Davids violence. Secondly,yy1 Sam. 10. 1, 2, 24.1 Sam 10:11 Sam 10:21 Sam 10:24 Saul was annointed some space before he was made King, and zz1 Sam. 16. 1. to 14.1 Sam 16:1–14David many yeere before hee came to the Crowne: I would then demand of any man; if Saul or David after their unction, and before their election and inauguration to the Crown had invaded or assaulted any of the people in an hostile manner, whether they might not have justly resisted, repulsed, yea slain them …o in their own necessary defence? If no…, then one Subject may not repulse the unjust violence of another in an elective kingdome, if by possibility he may afterwards be chosen king, though for the present he be neither actually king nor Magistrate, but a Shepheard, as David was, Psal. 78. 70, 71▪ which I presume none will affirm, I am certain none can prove: If so then it was not Sauls annointing but onelyonly his Royall Authority, which made David thus to spare his life, his person. So that our Opposites pressing this Argument only from his Annointing, is both false and idle, as all the premises demonstrate.

But to set the Argument right; I answer thirdly, That all which these Texts and Davids example prove, is but this. That Subjects ought not wilfully or purposely to murder or offer violence to the persons of their kings; especially in cold blood when they doe not actually assault them. Ergo they may not resist, repulse their personall actuall assaults, nor oppose their cut-throat Cavaleers when they make an unjust warre against them. Which Argument is a meer Non sequitur.

For 1. Davids example extends only to Sauls own person, not to his Souldiers, who were neither kings, nor Gods Annointed; and whom David no doubt would have resisted and slain too had they assaulted him, though he spared Saul: asaaSoct. 2. p. …. Dr. Fern himselfe insinuates in these words; Davids Guard that he had about him, was onelyonly to secure his person against the cut-throats of Saul, if sent to take away his life, &c. He was p. 95annoynted and designed by the Lord to succeed Saul, and therefore he might use an extraordinary way of safe-guarding his person: Sect. ….Therefore he and his Guard would and might doubtlesse have with a safe conscience resisted, repulsed Sauls cut-throat Souldiers, had they assaulted David, to take away his life. And if so, then the Kings Cutthroat Cavalleers by his own confession, may lawfully be resisted, repulsed, slain in a defensive way, by the Parliaments forces now.

Secondly, the argument is absurd, because we may forcibly resist and repulse with safe conscience, those whom we may not wilfully slay. If a man assaults me, to beat or wound me, I may resist, repulse him with violence, but I may not kill him in mine own defence, without murder or manslaughter, unlesse I could not otherwise preserve my own life by flight or resistance.bbSect. 2. p. …. Doctor Ferne grants, that a Subject may in his own private defence, lawfully ward off the Kings own blows, and hold his hands, in case of sudden and illegall assaults, much more then of malicious and premeditated: but yet denies, he may either wound or kill him, and that truely. To argue therefore from Davids example and words, The King may not with safe conscience be wittingly slain by his subjects: Ergo, He and his Cavaleers may not be forcibly resisted, repulsed by them for their own defence and preservation, is a grosse inconsequent by the Doctors own confession.

Thirdly, there is nothing in all these speeches, or the practise, or in David, pertinent to the case in dispute; for whencc1 Sam. 2…. 3. to 16.1 Sam 2:3–16 Davids men moved him to kill Saul, and would have risen up against him, to slay him, & David refused to act, or suffer his men to do it; neither Saul nor 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 h… 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 Soveraingne king Saul, to kill him thus in cold blood, when he assaulted them not, nor so much as thought of their being in the Cave, and went out of it quietly, not discovering them; Ergo, they might not, they would not in conscience have resisted, repulsed him, or his Forces, had they assaulted, or given them battell in the Cave, is a Non-sence Conclusion; just in effect the same with this. I may not resist or repulse one who assaults me not, Ergo, I may not resist one that actually assaults me to take away my life, or to beat, rob, wound me: What Logick, Reason, Law or Divinitie is there in such an argument? So after this whendd1 Sam. 26. 7. to 25.1 Sam 26:7–25 Abishai said to David, God hath delivered Saul thine enemie into thy hand this day, now therefore let me smite him, I pray thee, with the spear, even to the earth at once, I will not smite him the second time: And David said to Abishai, Destroy him not, for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Anoynted (to wit, to slay him purposely, as Abishai intended) and be guiltlesse? The Text is expresse, That Saul and his men were then in their own Trenches, fast a sleep, because a deep sleep from the Lord was fallen upon them; David and Abishai were here the onelyonly assailants, they came into Sauls Trenches, he and his whole army were in so sound a sleep, that they came to Sauls own person, took away with them his Spear, and the Cruse of 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 quarrell, had been Treachery and impiety in a Son-in-Law, a Servant, a Subject, a Successour; p. 96and to do it with the hazard of their own lives, had any of Sauls Army been awakened at the stroke Abishai would have given him. (as probably they might have been) they being but two, and within their enemies Trenches, in the midst of the Army, who might have easily and speedily slain them, had been rashnesse, indiscretion; their departure with the Spear and Cruse was more Heroicall, Loyall, prudentiall. To conclude therefore, as our Opposites do from this speech and example, That David thought it unlawfull in point of Conscience for him or Abishai to murther his Soveraign Lord King Saul, when he and his men were thus fast asleep in the midst of their Trenches, offering them no wrong, making no actuall assaults upon them; Ergo, they could not, would not iustly with safe consciences have forcibly defended themselves against Saul and his Army, had they been assaulted by them in their own Trenches; is a trascendent absurdity, refuted by the very next words of David to Abishai at that instant, 1 Sam. 26. 10. And David said furthermore, As the Lord liveth, the Lord shall smite him, or his day shall come to die; or he shall DESCEND INTO BATTELL AND PERISH; which intimates, that if Saul would force him to a battell, then he might lawfully defend himself against his violence, though he might not murther him now in his sleep, when he did him no harm; and if he casually perished in the battell, it was Sauls own wilfull default, not his, who could not disswade him by all this his fair carriage and sparing of his life, (when he had those two advantages to slay him) from his violent prosecution, nor yet succeed him in the Crown (as God had appointed and foretold) should he suffer him to murther him and his men in battell without resistance. Yea, Davids earnestnesse to go with Achish and the Philistines to the battell against Saul, wherein he perished, 1 Sam. 29. (unlesse we will taxe David for a notable Hypocrite and dissembler) unanswerably evidenceth, that he deemed it lawfull to resist, to encounter Saul and his Forces in battell, not withstanding his person might chance to perish in the fight, though not to slay him treacherously, and basely upon the precedent advantages: And his slaying of that lyingee2 Sam. 2.2 Sam 2 Amalekite who brought him tydings of Sauls death, reporting that himself had slain him, to gain a reward from David, he being then one of Sauls souldiers▪ (as it seems) concludes onelyonly, that it was not lawfull for any of Sauls own men to s…y him, by his own command: Not that resistance of him in the open battell was unlawfull in point of conscience. Other answers might be given to this Objection concerning David and Saul. As 1. that this difference was but private and personall between Saul and David, David being then Sauls private subject, Servant, Son in Law, not publike between Saul his whole Parliament or Kingdom; now many things are unlawfull to be done in private quarrels, which are iust and honourable in publike differences.

Secondly, that David himself, though he thus forbore to murther Saul, yet he tels him, 1 Sam. 24. 10, 11, 12. This day thine eyes have seen how that the Lord had delivered thee to day into mine hand in the Cave, and some bad me kill thee, but mine eye SPARED THEE; and I said, I will not put forth my hand against my Lord, for he is the Lords anoynted. Moreover, my father, see, yea▪ see the skirt of thy Robe in my hand, for in that I cut off the skirt of thy Robe and KILLED THEE NOT, know thou and see, that there is neither evill nor transgression in mine hand, and I have not sinned against thee, yet thou 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 p. 97Lord render to every man according to his righteousnes & faithfulnes, for the Lord delivered thee into my hand to day, 1 Sam. 26. 23, 24.1 Sam 26:231 Sam 26:24but I would not stretch forth my hand against the Lords annointed. And behold, as THY LIFE WAS MVCH SET BY THIS DAY IN MY EYES, so let my life be much set by in the eyes of the Lord, and let him deliver me out of all tribulation: Wherein David declared, that God had given up Sauls life into his power, that it was his owne meer goodnesse that moved him to spare Saul contrary to his Souldiers, and Abishaies minds, who would have slain him, without any scruple of conscience; that the reasons he spared him were: First, because he was Gods Annointed, that is, specially designed and made King of Israel by Gods own election, which no kings at this day are, & so this reason extends not so fully to them, as to Saul. Secondly, Because he was his Father and Lord too, and so it would have been deemed somewhat an unnaturall act in him. Thirdly, because it had …avoured onelyonly of private self-revenge and ambitious aspiring to the Crown before due time, which became not David, the quarrell, being then not publike, but particular betwixt him and David onelyonly, who was next to succeed him after his death. Fourthly, because by this his lenity he would convince & reclaim Saul frō his bloody pursuit, and cleare his innocency to the world. Fifthly, to evidence his dependence upon God and his speciall promise; that he should enjoy the Crown after Saul by divine appointment; and therefore he would not seem to usurp it by taking Sauls life violently away. Most of which considerations faile in cases of publike defence, and the present controversie. Thirdly, that Saul himselfe, as well as Davids Souldiers, conceived, that David might with safe conscience have slain as well as spared him; witnesse his words, 1 Sam. 24. 17, 18, 19 Thou art more righteous then I, for thou hast rewarded me good, whereas I have rewarded thee evill: And thou hast shewed me this day how thou hast dealt well with me; for as much as when the Lord had delivered me into thine hand THOV KILLEDST ME NOT. For if a man finde his enemy WIL HE LET HIM GO WEL AWAY? Wherefore the Lord reward thee good for that thou hast done unto me this day, &c. And in 1. Sam. 26. 21. Then said Saul, I have sinned; returne my sonne David, for I will no more do thee harm, because my sovle was precious in thine eyes this day; behold I have played the fool exceedingly, &c. But the former answers are so satisfactory, that I shall not pray in ayd from these, much lesse from that evasion of Dr. Fern, who makes this, and all other Davids demeanors in standing out against SaulffSect. 2. p. …. EXTRAORDINARY; for he was annointed and designed by the Lord to succeed Saul; and therefore he might also use all extraordinary wayes of safeguarding his person; which like wise insinua…es, that this his scruple of conscience in sparing Sauls life was but extraordinary, (the rather, because all his Souldiers and Abishai would have slain Saul without any such scruple, and Saul himselfe conceived, that any man else but David would have done it:) and so by consequence affirms, that this his sparing of Saul is no wayes obl…gatory to other subjects, but that they may lawfully in Davids case kill their Soveraigns▪ But Davids resistance 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 onelyonly men, but all living creatures generally to use for their own defence, and this evasion derogating exceedingly from the personall safety of Princes, yea, and exposing them to such perils as they have cause to con the Dr. small thanks for such a bad invention, I shall reject it as the extraordinary fansie of the Dr. & other loyalists, void both of truth and loyalty.

p. 98The 7. Obiection Object. 7.out of the Old Testament is this, 1 Sam. 8. 11. Samuel tells the people,ggDr Fern, Resolving of Conscience, Sect. 2. p. 10. And others. how they should be oppressed under kings; yet all that violence and injustice that should be done unto them, is no just cause of resistance: for they have NO REMEDY LEFT THEM BVT CRYING TO THE LORD, v. 18. And ye shall cry out in that day because of the King which ye shall have chosen you, and the Lord will not hear you in that day.

To this I answerAswer. 1. 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 onelyonly of the oppression, violence, and in…u… (not lawfull power) of Kings, which should cause them thus to cry out to God This truth we have clearly gained by this obiection, for which some Royallists will renounce their champion. 2. It is but a meer fallacie and absurdity not warranted by the Text; which saith not, that they shall onelyonly cry out; or that they shall use no remedy or resistance, but crying out; which had been materiall, but barely, ye shall cry out in that day, &c. Ergo, they must and should onelyonly crie out, and not resist at all▪ is a grosse Non-sequitur: which Argument because much cryed up, I shall demonstrate the palpable absurdity of it by many parallell instances. First, Every Christian is bound to pray for Kings and Magistrates, 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2. Ergo, they must onelyonly pray and not fight for them, nor yeeld tribute or obedience to them: Kings and their Subjects too are bound to crie out, and pray to God against forraign enemies that come to war against them, as hhExod. 14.Exod 14Moses did against Pharaoh and his Host, iiPsa. 59. 1, 10 and other Psal.Ps 59:1Ps 59:10David against his enemies, kk2 Chron. 32. 20. 2 King. 19.2 Chr 32:202 Kgs 19Hezekiah against Sennacherib and his Hoste, ll2 Chron. 14. 9. 9. to 15.2 Chr 14:92 Chr 14:9–15Asa against his enemies, mm2 Chron. 13 14, 15, 16.2 Chr 13:142 Chr 13:152 Chr 13:16Abijah and the men of Iudah against Ieroboam and the Israelites their enemies; and as all Christians usually do against their enemies. (Yea, I make no doubt but the Doctor, and other Court-Chaplains, inform his Majesty and the Cavalleers, that they must cry to God against the Parliamenteers and Roundheads now in Arms to resist them;) Ergo, they must onelyonly pray, but in no wise resist or fight against them; All men must pray to God for their nnMat. 16. 11.Matt 16:11daily bread: Ergo, they must onelyonly pray and not labour for it; Sick ooIam. 5. 14, 15, 16.Jas 5:14Jas 5:15Jas 5:16persons must pray to God to restore their health: Ergo, they must take no Physick, but onelyonly pray; All men are expresly commanded toppPsal. 50. 15Ps 50:15 crie and call upon God in the day of trouble, Ergo, they must use no meanes but prayer to free themselves from trouble; pretty Logick, Reason, Divinity, fitter for deri…ion then any serious Answer. This is all this Text concludes, and that grosly mistaken Speech of Saint Ambrose, Christians weapons are Prayers, and Tears; of which anon in its due place. In one word, prayer no more excludes resistance, then resistance, prayer, both of them may, and sometimes (when defence is necessary, as now) ought to concurre; so that our Court Doctors may as well argue, (as some Prelates not long since did in word and deed) Ministers ought to pray, and Gods **Matth. 21. 13.Matt 21:13House is an Oratory for prayer: Ergo, they must not Preach (atleast, very seldom) nor make his House an Auditory for Preaching: Or as rationally reason from this Text, That Subjects must cry out to God against their kings oppressions, Ergo, they must not petition their Kings, much lesse complain to their Parliament for relief; as conclude from thence; Ergo, they may in no case resist the king,Object. 8. or his invading Forces, though they indeavour to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, as the Doctor himself states the controversie: whose arguments will hardly satisfie conscience, being so voyd of reason, …ence, yea science.

The eighth is this, qqDr Ferne, Sect. 2, 3. An App…al to thy Conscience.None of the Prophets in the old Testament, reprehending the p. 99Kings of Israel and Iudah for their grosse Idolatry, cruelty, oppression, did call upon the Elders of the people for the duty of resistance; neither do we finde the people resisting, or taking up Arms against any of their kings, no not against Ahab or Manasseh, upon any of these grounds: Ergo, resistance is unlawfull.

To which I must reply, first, Answ. 1.That none of the Prophets did ever forbid resistance in such cases, under pain of Damnation, as our new Doctors do now; Ergo, it was lawfull, because not prohibited. Secondly, 2.that as none of the people werethen inhibited to resist, so not dehorted from it: therefore they might freely have done it, had they had hearts and zeal to do it. Thirdly, 3.**Antiqu. Iud. l. 4. c. 8.Iosephus resolves expresly, That by the very Law of God, Deuter. 17. If the King did contrary to that Law, multiply silver, gold, and horses to himself, more then was fitting, the Israelites might lawfully resist him, and were bound to do it, to preserve themselves from Tyrannie; Therefore no doubt they might have lawfully resisted their Kings Idolatry, cruelty oppressions. Fourthly, 4.qqExplan…. Artit. 42. Operum, Tom. 1. 84Hulderichus Zuinglius, a famous Protestant Divine, with others, positively affirms, That the Israelites might not onelyonly lawfully resist, but likewise depose their 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 Ie…em 15. where after the four Plagues there recited, the Prophet subjoynes the cause of them, saying, Verse 4. I will give them in fury to all the Kingdoms of the Earth, (that is, I will stirre up in fury all the kings of the earth against them) because of Manasseh the son of Hezekiah king of Iudah, for that which he did in Ierusalem. This Manasseh had committed many wickednesses by Idolatrie and the shedding of innocent blood, as we may see in the one and twentieth Chapter of the second of the Kings; for which evills the Lord grievously punished the people of Israel: Manasseh shed over much innocent blood, untill he had filled Ierusalem even to the mouth, with his sins wherewith he made Iudah to sinne, that it might do evill before the Lord: Therefore because Manasseh King of Iudah did these most vile abominations, above all that the Amorites had done before him, and made the Land of Iudah to sin in his uncleanesse, therefore thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Behold, I will bring evill upon Ierusalem and Iudah, that whosever shall hear, both his ears shall tingle &c. In summe, if the Iews had not thus permitted their King to be wicked WITHOVT PVNISMENT; they had not been so grievously punished by God. We ought to pull and cast away even our eye that offends, so a hand and foot, &c. If the Israelites had thus DEPOSED Manasseh by consent and suffrages of all, or the greatest part of the multitude, they had not been so grievously punished of God. So Zuinglius, with whom even ssThird Part of the True Difference between Christion subiection, &c p. 513. 514.B. Bilson himself in some sort accords, who in desending & interpreting his opinion, confesseth, That it is a question among the Learned, What Soveraigney the whole people of Israel had over their Kings;tt1 Sam. 14.1 Sam 14 confessing, that the peoples rescuing Ionathan that he …ed not, when Saul would have put him to death,uu1 Chron. 13.1 Chr 13 Davids speech to the people when he purposed to reduce the Arke, xx1 Kin. 12.1 Kgs 12all the Congregations speech and carriage toward Rehoboam when they came to make him King, with theyy…er. 26. peoples speech to Ieremy, Thou shalt die the death; have perswaded some, and might lead Zuinglius to think, that the people of Israel, notwithstanding they called for a King, yet RESERVED TO THEMSELVES SVFFICIENT AVTHORITY TO OVERRVLE THEIR KING, IN THOSE THINGS WHICH SEEMED EXPEDIENT AND NEEDFVLL FOR THE PVBLIKE WELFARE▪ else p. 100God would not punish the people for the kings iniquity, which they must suffer, and not redresse. Which opinion, if as Orthodox, as these learned Divines and Iosephus averre it, not onelyonly quite ruines our Opposites Argument, but their whole Treatises and cause at once. But fiftly, I answer, that subiects not onelyonly by command of Gods Prophets, but of God himself, and by his speciall approbation have taken up Arms against their Idolatrous Princes, to ruine them and their Posterities: A truth so apparent in Scripture, that I wonder our purblinde Doctors discern it not: For did not God himself, notwithstanding his frequent (conditionall) promises to establish the Kingdom of Israel on David, Solomon and their Posterity; forzz1 King. 11. 1. to 40.1 Kgs 11:1–40 Solomons grosse Idolatry (occasioned by his Wives) tell Solomon in expresse terms? VVherefore for as much as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my Covenant and my Statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely REND THE KINGDOM FROM THEE, and will give it to thy servant. Notwithstanding in thy dayes I will not do it, for David thy fathers sake; but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son. Did not the Prophet. Abijah in pursuance hereof, rending Ieroboams garment into twelve pieces, tell him? Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, behold, I will rend the Kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee; And I will take the Kingdom out of his sons hand, and will give it unto thee, even ten Tribes; and I will take thee, and thou shalt reign according to all that thy soul desireth, and shalt be King over Israel; and I will for this afflict the Seed of David. aa1 King. 12. … Chr. 10.1 Kgs 12Yea, did not ALL ISRAEL upon Solomons death, when Rehoboam his son refused to grant their iust requests at their coming to Sechem to make him king, use this speech to the king, What Portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Iesse, to your Tents ô Israel: now see to thine own house David. Whereupon they departed and fell away from the house of David everafter, and made Iereboam King over all Israel. And doth not the Text directly affirm? Wherefore Rehoboam hearkned not unto the people, for the cause was from the Lord, that he might perform the saying which the Lord spake to Abijah unto Ieroboam, the son of Nebat. After which when Rehoboam raised a mighty Army to reduce the ten Tribes to obedience, the Word of the Lord came to Shemaiah the man of God, saying, Speak unto Rehoboam and all the house of Iudah and Benjamin, Thus SAITH THE LORD, Ye shall not go up to fight against your brethren the children of Israel, return every man to his house; FOR THIS THING IS FROM ME; They hearkned therefore to the word of the Lord and returned to depart, according to the word of the Lord. Lo here a Kingdom quite rent away from the very house of David; yea, a new King and kingdom erected by the People, by Gods and his Prophets speciall direction, and approbation, for King Solomons Idolatry. Who is such a stranger to the sacred Story, but hath oft-times read, how God anoynted Iehu King, of purpose to extirpate and cut off the whole house of K. Ahab his Lard for his and Iezabels Idolatry and blood-shed, in slaying the Prophets, and unjustly executing Naboth for his Vineyard? in performance whereof he s…ew his Soveraign King Ioram, Ahaziah King of Iudah, Queen Iezabel, all Ahabs posterity, his great men, his Nobles, and all the Priests and Worshippers of Baal, till he left none remaining, according to the word of the Lord which he spake by his servant Elijah, a Kings c. 9. & 10. For which good service the Lord said unto Iehu, Because THOV HAST DONE WELL in executing that which is right in mine eyes, and hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was IN MINE HEART, thy children of the …. generation, shall sit on the Thron of Israel. p. 101This fact therefore of his thus specially commanded, approved, rewarded by God himself, must needs be just and lawfull, not Treason, not Rebellion in Iehu, unlesse the Opposites will charge God to be the author, approver, and rewarder o…fin, of Treason.

Neither will it serve their turns to Reply,Evasion, Reply. that this was an extraordinary example, not to be imitated without such a speciall commission from heaven, as Iehu had, and no man can now a dayes expect;bbDeut. 13. thorowout. c. 17. 1. to 8.Deut 13 For since God hath frequently injoyned all grosse incorrigible Idolaters (especially those who are nearest and dearest to, and most potent to seduce us) to be put to death, without any pitty, or exception of Kings, whose examples are most pernicious, and apt to corrupt the whole Nation, as the presidents of the Idolat…ous kings of Israel and Iudah abundantly evidence) if Kings become open professed Idolaters, though private persons may not murther them, and their families, as Iehu; yet the representative body, or greater part of their Kingdoms, (as many Pious Divines affirm) may lawfully convent, depose, if not judge them capitally for it: and Gods putting zeal and courage into their hearts, or exciting them by his faithfull Ministers, to such a proceeding, is a sufficient Divine Commission to satisfie Conscience, if no sinister private ends, but meer zeal of Gods glory, and detestation of Idolatry be the onelyonly Motives to such their proceedings.cc1 Kin. 15. 27. to 34. c. 16. 1. 2.1 Kgs 15:27–34 Thus we read, God stirred up Baach…, 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 breathed, because of the sins of Ieroboam which he sinned, and which he made Israel sin, dd1 Kings 16. 1, to 20.1 Kgs 16:1–20by his provocation where with he provoked the Lord God of Israel to anger; who going on after in Ieroboams sins, God threatens to …ut off all his house, and make it like the house of Ieroboam; which was actually executed by Zimri, who slew his Soveraign King Elah, son to Baacha, With all the house of Baacha, and left not one that pissed against the wall, neither of his kinsfolks▪ nor of his friends, according to the word of the Lord which he spake against Baacha by Iehu 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 onelyonly out of ambition to usurp the Crown, without the peeples consent; whereupon all the people made Omri King and then going all to the Royall Palace, set it on fire, and burnt Omri in it, both for his sins, Idolatries, and Treason which he wrought. We read expresly, ee2 Chron. 25. 27, 28. c, 6. 1. to 6. 1 King. 14. 19, 20, 21, c, 15.2 Chr 25:272 Chr 25:281 Kgs 14:191 Kgs 14:201 Kgs 14:21that after the time that Amaziah did turn away from following the Lord, they (for this) conspired a conspiracie against him in Ierusalem, and he fled to Lachish, but they sent to Lachish after him, and slew him there; and they brought him upon horses, and buried him with his fathers in the City of Iudah. Then all the people of Iudah took Uzziah, who was 16 years old, and MADE HIM KING in the room of his father Amaziah, and he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord. So ff2 King. 15.2 Kgs 15Zachariah, Shallum, Pekahiah, Pekah, four evill Kings of Iudah, successivly acquiring the Crown by murther, and reigning evilly in Gods sight, were all slain by Gods just judgement on them, of one another, and Hoshea. In few words, God himself ever annexed this condition to the Kings of Israel and Iudah, that they should serve and fear him, obey his Laws, keep his Covenant, otherwise if they did wickedly forsake him, or commit idolatry, he would destroy, forsake, and cast them and their seed off from being **1 Sam. 12. 14. 15. 25. 2 Sam. 7. 11, 12, 14, 15, 16. Psa. 89. 30, 31, 32. 1 Chro. 28. 7, 8, 9. 1 Kin. 11. 9, 10, 11, 12, 32, 38, 1 Sam. 15. 23, 26, 27, 28 29, …5. c. 16. 1. compared with Deut. 17. 16. to the end.1 Sam 12:141 Sam 12:151 Sam 12:252 Sam 7:112 Sam 7:122 Sam 7:142 Sam 7:152 Sam 7:16Ps 89:30Ps 89:31Ps 89:321 Chr 28:71 Chr 28:81 Chr 28:91 Kgs 11:91 Kgs 11:101 Kgs 11:111 Kgs 11:121 Kgs 11:321 Kgs 11:381 Sam 15:231 Sam 15:261 Sam 15:271 Sam 15:28Deut 17:16Kings. When therefore they apparently violated the condition, the whole State and people, as Gods Instruments, lawfully might, and sometimes did by Gods speciall direction, remov p. 102depose, and sometimes put them even to death for their grosse iniquities, and idolatries; and when they did it not, it was not (as many think) for want of lawfull Soveraign Authority remaining in the whole State and people, (as I shall fully manifest in the Appendix) but out of a defect of zeal, out of a generall complying with their Kings in gg1 King 12. 30. c. 13. 33. 34. …. 14. 7. to 17. c. 15. to the end of, c. 22. 2 King. …. 1. to the end of c. 25. 2 Chro. 10. 10. to the end of c. 24.1 Kgs 12:302 Chr 10:10their abominable idolatries and sins, which brought War, Captivity, ruine, both on their Kings, their Posteritie, the whole Nation and Kingdoms of Iudah, and Israel, as the Sacred Story plentifully relates. All which considered, this objection proves not onelyonly false, but fatall to the Obiectors cause, who might with more discretion have forborn, then forced such an answer to it, which I hope and desire no private persons will abuse to iustifie any disloyalty, sedition, Treason, Rebellion, or taking up of Arms against their lawfull Princes, though never so evill, without the publike consent and authority of the representative bodies or major part of their severall Realms, byassed with no sinister nor private respects, but ayming onelyonly at Gods glory, and the publike weale, security, peace of Church and State. Thus much in answer to the principall Objections out of the Old Testament.

The ninth and most materiall hhDr Ferne, Sect. 2. p. 10, 11, 12. and elsewhere. The necessitie of Christian Subiection, Oxford, 1643. Appeal to thy Conscience, 1643. The Lords Anoin…ed, Oxford, 1643 with others.Obiection, Object. 9.on which our Opposites principally relie, is that noted Text in the new Testament, Rom. 13. 1, 2. Let every soul be subject unto the higher Powers, for there is no Power but of God; the Powers that be, are Ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God, and they that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation. From whence Dr. Fern concludes, 1. That the King is the Supreme or Highest Power here intended. 2. That all persons under the Highest Power are expressely forbidden to resist. 3. That in those dayes there was a standing and continuall great Senate, which not long before had the Supreme Power in the Roman State, and might challenge more by the fundamentalls of that State, then our Great Councell will or can. But now the Emperour being supreme, as S. Peter calls him, or the Higher Power, as S. Paul here, there is no power of resistance left to any that are under him, by the Apostle. 4 Was there ever more cause of resistance then in those dayes? Were not the Kings then not onelyonly 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 …error to good works, but evill, and he is the Minster of God to thee for good) replie, That Rulers so long as they are not a terror to the good, but ministers for our good, are not to be resisted; the consideration of those times leaves no place for such exception, because the Powers then (which the Apostle forbids to resist) were nothing so, but subverters of that which was good and just. The Emperors did then indeed rule absolutely and arbitrarily, which should have according to the Principles of those dayes beene a stronger motive to resist. But how did they make themselves of Subjects such absolute Monarchs? was it not by force and change of the Government? and was not the right of the People and Senate (according to the Principles of these dayes) good against them, with as much or more reason, then the right of the people of this Land is against the Succession of this Crown, descending by three Conquests? 5. The prohibition doth not onelyonly concern Christians, but all the people under those Emperors, and not onelyonly Religion was persecuted, but Liberties also lost, the people and Senate were then enslaved by Edicts and Laws then inforced on them, by Nero and other Roman Emperours, yet notwithstanding the Apostle prohibits them to resist. By all which consc…ence will clearly see, it can have no warrant in Scripture for resistance, to wit, of p. 103the King, or his invading Forces, by way of necessary defence. So the Doctors and other Ob…ectors hence conclude

To give a satisfactory Answer to this grand Objection,Answ. I shall in the first place inquire, Whether there be anything in this Text, prohibiting subjects to resist with Force the armed unjust violence of their Princes persons or instruments, especially when they are bent to overthrow Religion, Laws, Liberties, the Republike, and turn professed Tyrants? And under correction, I conceive there is not the least syllable or shadow in this Text for any such inhibition, as is pretended. Not to insist upon the words, higher Powers odained of God, &c. which extend not unto Tyrannie and illegall exorbitant oppressions, of which hereafter; I shall deduce my first Demonstrations to prove this negative Assertion, from the occasion inducing the Apostle to insert these objected Verses into this Epistle:iiSixfold Comment. on Rom. 13. Quest. 1. p. 578.Rom 13 Dr Willet recites 7. Reasons of it, all fortifying my assertion; I shall mention onelyonly the three most probable, most received of them, and apply them as I go.

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

2. The Gaulonites, askkAntiqu. Iud. l. 18. c. 1. 2. Iosephus records, with other Iews, being Abrahams seed, held it unlawfull for them to yeeld any subjection or tribute to the Roman Emperors, or other Heathen Princes, reigning over them; whereupon they demanded this question of Christ himself, Is it lawfull to pay tribute to Caesar? Matth. 12. which error perehance spread it self into the Christian Church, by reason of Evangelicall Libertie, grounded on Ioh. 8. If the Son shall make you free, then are ye free indeed; Mat. 17. The… are the Children free; and Ro. 6. We are not under the Law, but under Grace. To refell this mistake, the Apostle inserted these passages into this Epistle; Thus Soto, Calvin, Peter Martyr, Willet, and others. Whence nothing but this can be properly concluded, Neither the Prerogative of the Iews, nor Liberty of Christians exempts them from due subjection to lawfull heathen Magistrates, because they are Gods Ordinance, Ergo, No Subjects can with safe conscience defend themselves in any case against the unjust invasions of Tyrannicall Princes or their Armies. A palpable Inconsequent.

Thirdly, the Apostle having formerly taught,**Rom. 12. ….Rom 12 that Christians might not avenge themselves: lest some might have inferred thereupon (as many**O siander. Enchir. cont…. cap. 9. de Magist. Polit. Anabaptists have done) that it was not lawfull for Christians to use the Magistrates defence against wrongs, nor for the Magistrate himself to take vengeance of evill doers: To prevent this the Apostle argues, That the Magistrates are Gods Ministers, appointed by him to punish Malefactors, and take vengeance on them. So Gualther, Willet, and others. To conclude from this ground: Oppressed Subjects may seek redresse of their grievances from the Magistrates, who may lawfully punish Malefactors, Ergo, they may not resist p. 104with force, Tyrannicall bloody Magistrates, or their wicked Instruments, when they actually make war upon them, to ruine, spoyl, enslave them, is but a ridiculous Non sequitur. There is nothing therefore in the occasions of the Apostles words which gives the least colour, to disprove the lawfulnesse of such resistance, or of the Parliaments just defensive war.

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

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

First, the higher Powers must be submitted to, and not resisted, because they are ordained of God, and are Gods Ordinance, vers. 1. 2. But they are ordained of God and his Ordinance, so far forth only as they govern according to his Word; and preserve, mmIsay 32. 1, 2. c. 49. 23. 1 Sa. 8. 20. Psa. 78. 72, 73, 74.Isa 32:1Isa 32:21 Sam 8:20Ps 78:72Ps 78:73Ps 78:74protect Religion, Lawes, Liberties, the persons and estates of their people; They are not Gods Ordinance, but the Devils,nnParaeus, Willet, Soto, and others. when they doe quite contrary,oo1 Pet. 5. 8.1 Pet 5:8 walking about lik… roaring Lions, se…k…ng whom they may devoure, as the Devill doth; According to that resolution of Bracton, and Fl…tappLib. 3. c. 9. f. 107. Exercere debet Rex potestatem Iuris 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 crit. …gitur dum facit justitiam, vicarius est Regis aeterni: MINISTER AVTEM DIABOLI dum declinat ad injuriam.qqEl…ta, l. 1. c. 17. Therefore they are so farre forth onelyonly to be obeyed and not resisted, as they are Gods Ordinance, and lawfull Magistrates, not a… they are tyrants and the Devils Agents: we might have obeyed the evill spirits themselvs whiles they continued good Angels; Ergo we must not resist them now they are turned Devils, is … Logick, course Divinity, contrary to the 1 Pet. 5. 8, 9. Iam. 4. 7.

Secondly, because those who resist shall receive to themselves damnation, temporall or eternall, since they resist Gods Ordinance, v. 2 But that subiects should be temporally and eternally damned, only for resisting tyrannicall Magistrates or their Cavaleers, and that by authority from the Parliament, when they with armed violence most impiously s…t themselves o subvert Religion, Lawes, Liberty, Propertie, and take away their liv…s, against all Lawes of God and Man; for which they themselves incurre both rrI say 14▪ 4. to 2…. 1 king 1. 21, & 22. Psal. 5, …. 1. to 7. Psa. 7. 13. Psa. 94. 20. 21. 23, Psal. 140. …. to 13.Ps 5Ps 7:13Ps 94:20Ps 94:21Ps 94:23Ps 140temporall and eternall damnation, …s …ch a Paradox, as is no wayes warranted by, but directly opposite to the Scripture. Therefore it must be intended onelyonly of resisting lawfull Authority, and iust commands.

3. They must be subiected to, not refisted, because Rulers are not aterror to good work, but to evil, v. 3. Now is this a reason why Subiects should not resist tyrannicall oppressing Princes, Magistrats, or their Instruments, who are only a terror to good works, not to evill? who dossPsal. 140. 1. to 6. Prov 1. 16. Mich. 2. 1. 3. …. 3. 23. 1…. 3.Ps 140:1–6Prov 1:16Mic 2:1Mic 2:3Mic 2:23 evill and only evill continually, even with both hands? doubtlesse not. We must not resist Rulers who are a terror to good works but to evill; Ergo, we must not resist Rulers, who are a terror to good works, not to evill, as our Opposites conclude he…ce, is to argue poi…blank against the Apostle; Ergo, we may and must p. 105resist them to our powers, lest we be ttRom. 1. 31. 32. 1 Tim. 5. 22 2 Iohn 10. 11. Rev. 1…. 4.Rom 1:31Rom 1:321 Tim 5:22Rev 1:4partakers of their sinnes and punishments, and become authors of Religions and the Commonwealths subversion, is a more proper inference.

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

Fiftly, he is not to be resisted, but obeyed; because he is the Minister of God to thee for good, Vers. 4. But is this true of Tyrants? of ungodly Magistrates bent to subvert Religion, Lawes, Liberties, and destroy their people? True ofuuSee Sueto… nius, Eutropius, Zonaras, Grimston and others in their lives. Caligula, of Nero, who wished all the Romans had but one necke, that he might cut them all off at one stroke; and purposely fired Rome to consume it, beholding the flames as a most delightfull spectacle? Are such the Ministers of God for our good here intended? or not rather,xxSee Seneca de Clem. l. 1. Hosea 13. 11.Hos 13:11 the very Pests, Iudgements, Scourges, Wolves, Cut-throats, destroyers of mankind, and direct Antinodes to all things that are good? If these be not within the Apostles definition, they are with out his inhibition; which extends onelyonly to such, who are the Ministers of God to us for good: and implies a lawfulnesse of resisting those who are the Devils Ministers to us for evill, rather then Gods for good.

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

Seventhly, the Apostle hereupon concludes, Vers. 5. Wherefore you must of necessity be subject not onelyonly for wrath, but also for conscience sake. This conclusion as the word, Wherefore, demonstrates, being inferred from the premised reasons, extending onelyonly to p. 106just and upright Magistrates, not to Tyrants, as they are such; must relate wholly unto them; namely, that we must of necessity be subject unto just rules, and the higher powers, governing uprightly; Because they are Gods Ordinance; because those who resist them shall receive damnation: Because they are not a Terror to good workes, but to evill: because we shall have praise of them if we doe good; because they are the Ministers of God to u… for good; and because they are Gods Ministers and revengers, to execute wrath upon them onelyonly that doe evill: bbSee Fox Acts and Monument, Eusebius, Socrates, Scholast, Nicephorus, Grimst…n in his life of Iulian the Apostate and others.Neither of which reasons extending to Tyrants, this conclusion can never reach to them; since no Law of God or man, necessitates any one to be subject, not onelyonly for wrath, but even for conscience sake, to the unjust commands and violence of Tyrants, but the quite contrary: Should Tyrants enjoyne men, as some have done, to offer sacrifice to Idols, to renounce Christianity, abjure Iesus Christ, and yeeld up their chastity to their unruly lusts; Gods ccDan. 3. 5. to 25. Acts 4. 20. c. 5. 28, 29.Dan 3:5–25Acts 4:20Law and conscience in such cases enjoynes them of necessity to disobey and resist those commands, even for conscience sake; as every man endued with conscience must acknowledge; Therefore this Text extends not to resistance of such exorbitant powers in such lawlesse cases.