Lex Rex, Question 34

Lex Rex · Question 34

p. 355QUEST. XXXIIII. Whether Royalists by cogent reasons do prove the unlawfulnesse of defensive warres?

WHat reasons have already been discussed, I touch not.

Obj. 1. Arnisaeus de authorit princ…p. c. 2. num. 2. If we are to obey our parents, not if they be good, Reasons against the lawfulnesse of resistance made to unjust violence, answered.but simply whether they be good or ill (so Iust. saith of the King, Quamvis legum contemptor, quamvis impius, tamen pater §. si vero in ff. vos. 12.) then must we submit to wicked Kings.

Ans. Valeat totum, we are to submit to wicked Kings, & wicked parents, because Kings, and parents: but when it cometh to actuall submission, we are to submit to neither but in the Lord; the question is not touching subjection to a Prince, let him be Nero, but if in acts of Tyranny we may not deny subjection: there be great odds betwixt wicked rulers, and rulers commanding or punishing unjustly.

Obj. 2. Arnisaeus c. 3. n. 9. We may resist an inferior magistrate. Ergo, we may resist the supreame, it followeth not, for an inferiour judge hath a Majesty in fiction onelyonly, not properly: treason is, or can onelyonly be committed against the King, the obligation to inferiour judges is onelyonly for the prince, the person of none is sacred and inviolable but the Kings.

Ans. We obey parents, masters, kings, upon this formall ground, because they are Gods deputies, and set over us, not by man, but by God: So that not onelyonly are we to obey them because what they command is good and just (such a sort of obedience an equall owes to the counsell of either equall or inferiour) but also by vertue of p. 356the fift commandement, because of their place of dignity: now this Majesty which is the formall reason of subjection is one and the same in spece and nature in King and Constable, and onelyonly different gradually in the King and in other judges, and it is denyed that there is any incommunicable sanctity in the Kings person which is not in some degree in the inferiour judge, all proceedeth from this false ground, that the King and inferiour judges differ in nature, which is denied: and treason inferiour may be committed against an inferiour judge, and it is a fiction that the inferiour judge doth not resemble God, as the King doth, yea there is a sacred Majesty in all inferiour judges, in the aged, in every superiour, wherefore they deserve honour▪ feare and reverence. Suppose there were no King on earth, as is cleare in Scripture. Exod. 20.12. Levit. 19.32. Esther 1.20. Psal. 149.9. Prov. 3.16. Math. 13.57. Heb. 5.4. Isa. 3 3. Lam. 5.12. Mal. 1.6. Psal. 8.5. and this honour is but united in a speciall manner in the King, because of his high place.

Obj. 3. A King elected upon conditions may be resisted.

Ans. He is as essentially a King, as a hereditary, yea as an absolute Prince, and no lesse the Lords annoynted then another prince, if then one, also another may be resisted.

Obj. 4. The oath of God bindeth the subjects. Ergo, they must obey, not resist.

Ans. Obedience and resistance are very consistent. 2. No doubt the people gave their oath to Athaliah, but to her as the onelyonly heir of the crown, they not knowing, that Ioash the lawfull heir was liveing, so may conditionall oaths (all of this kinde are conditionall) in which there is interpretative and virtuall ignorance, be broken, as the peopl… swear loyalty to such a man conceived to be a father, he after that turneth Tyrant, may they not resist his Tyranny? they may. Also no doubt Israel gave their oath of loyalty to Iabin, (for when Nebuchadnezer subdued Iudah he took an oath of loyalty of their King.) Yet many of Zabulon, Nepthali, and Isachar, Barack leading them, conspired against Iabin.

Obj. 5. There is no law to take a Kings life, if he turne a Nero, we never read that Subjects did it.

Ans. The treatise of unlimited prerogative saith, p. 7. We read not that a father killing his children, was killed by them, the fact being abhominable. 2. The law Gen. 6.9. Levit. 24.16. …xcepteth none. See Deut. 13.6. the dearest that nature knoweth, are not excepted.

p. 357Obj. 6. Vengeance pursued Core, Dathan and Abiram who resisted Moses.

Ans. From resisting of a lawfull magistrate, in a thing lawfull, it followeth not, it must be unlawfull to resist Kings, in Tyrannous acts.

Obj. 7. Exod. 22.28. Thou shalt not revile the Gods, nor curse the Ruler of the people. Exod. 10.20. Curse not the King, no not in thy thought, nor the rich in thy bed-chamber.

Ans. 1. The word Elohim signifieth all judges, and foreign, nasi signifieth one lifted up above the people, saith Rivetus in loc. whether a monarch, or many rulers. All cursing of any is unlawfull, even of a private man, Rom. 12.14. Ergo we may not resist a private man by this: the other text readeth, contemne not the King. foreign in scientiâ tuâ. Aria. Mon. or in thy conscience or thought: and it may prove resisting any rich man to be unlawfull. Nothing in word or deed tending to the dishonour of the King may be done, now to resist him in self-defence, being a commandment of God in the law of nature cannot fight with another commandment to honour the King, no more then the fift commandement can fight with the six…h, for all resistance is against the judge, as a man exce…ding the limits of his office, in that, wherein he is resisted, not as a judge.

Obj. 8. Eccles. 8.3.4. Where the word of a King is, there is power: and who may say to him, what dost thou? Ergo, the King cannot be resisted.

Ans. 1. Tremel. saith well, that the scope is that a man go not from the Kings lawfull command in passion and rebellion. Vatab. If thou go from the King in disgrace, strive to be reconciled to him quickly. Cajetan. Vse not Kings too familiarly, by comming too quickly to them, or going too hastily from them. Plutarch, Cum rege agendum ut cum rogo, neither too neere this fire, nor too farre off. Those have smarted who have been too great in their favour, Ahasuerus slew Haman, Alexander so served Clitus, and Tiberius Sejanus, and Nero Seneca. But th… … is cleare, rebellion is forbidden, not resistance, so the hebrew, foreign stand not in an evil matter, or in a rebellion. And he dehorteth from rebellion against the King, by an argument taken from his power. 3. For he doth whatsoever pleaseth him. 4. Where the word of a King is, there is power, And who may say unto him, What doest thou? The meaning is in way of justice, he is armed with power that cannot be resisted, other wayes Samuel p. 358said to King Saul, 1 Sam. 13.13. Thou hast done foolishly. Eliah said more to Ahab then What hast thou done? And the Prophets were to rebuke sinne in Kings, 2 King. 3.14. Ier. 1.28. Chap. 22.3. Hos. 5.1, 2. And though Solomon here give them a power, he speaketh of Kings as they are de facto; but de jure they are under a Law, Deut. 17.18.

If the meaning be, as Royalists dreame, he doth whatsoever hee will or desireth,foreign as a Prince, by his royall, that is, his legall will, by which he is lex animata, a breathing law; we shall owne that as truth, and it is nothing against us. But if the meaning be, that De jure, as King, he doth whatsoever he will, by the absolute supremacie of Royall will above all law and reason; then Ioram should by law as King, take Elisha's head away, and Elisha resisted God, in saying, What doth the King? and he sinned in commanding to deal rougbly with the Kings messenger, and hold him at the doore: then the foure…core valiant Priests, who said to King Vzziah, What dost thou? resisted him, in burning incense, which he desired to doe, sinned; Then Pharaoh, who said, Ezech. 29.3. The river Nilus is mine, I have made it for my selfe: and the King of Tyrus, Ezek. 28.2. I am God, I sit in the seat of God, should not be controlled by the Prophets, and no man should say to them, What sayest thou? Did Cyrus as a King, with a Royall power from God, and jure regio, be angry at the river Gyndes, because it drowned one of his horses, and punish it, by dividing it in 130. Channels? Sen. l. 3. de ira, c. 21. And did Xerxes, jure regio, by a Royall power given of God,He…d. l. 7. de Xe…xe. when Hellespontus had cast downe his bridges, command that three hundred whips should be inflicted on that little sea, and that it should be cast in fetters? And our Royalists will have these mad fooles, doing these acts of blasphemous insolencie against heaven, to be honoured as Kings, and to act those acts by a regall power. But heare, flatterers, a Royall power is the good gift of God, a lawfull and just power. A King acting and speaking as a King, speaketh and acteth Law and Justice. A power to blaspheme is not a lawfull power; they did and spake thes… things with a humane and a sinfull will, if therefore this be the Royali…ts meaning, as Kings, 1. They are absolute, and so the limited and elected King is no King. 2. The King as King is above Gods Law, put on him by God, Deut. 17. 3. His will is the measure of good and ill. 4. It were unlawfull to say to the King of Cyrus, What sayest thou? Thou art not p. 359God, according to this vaine sense of Royalists.

Obj. 9. Elihu saith, Iob 34.18. Is it (fit) to say to a King, (Thou art) wicked, and to Princes, (Ye are) ungodly? Ergo, You may not resist Kings.

Ans. 1. This Text no more proveth that Kings should not be resisted, then it proveth that rich men, or liberall men, or other Judges in…eriour, should not be resisted, for foreign signifieth all that, and it signifieth liberall, Isa. 32.5. And ver. 8. the same word is. 2. Deodat. and Calvin say, the meaning is, Learne from the respect that is due to earthly princes, the reverence due to the Soveraign Lord, Mal. 1.8. for it is not convenient to reproach earthly Kings, and and to say to a Prince, foreign Beliel, a word of reproach, signifying extreme wickednesse. And you may not say to a man of place, foreign an extreamly wicked man, so are the words taken, as signifying most vile and wicked men, 1 Sam. 2.12. 1 Sam. 10.27. 2 Sam. 24.6. Psal. 1.1, 6. Psal. 11.5. Psal. 12.8. Prov. 16.4. Psa. 146.9. and in infinite places. For foreign is a word of extreme reproach, comming from foreign sine, non, and foreign profuit, Iud. 19.22. a most naughtie and a lewd man, or from foreign jugum, a lawlesse man, who hath cast off all yokes of Gods or Mans Law.Vulgar version and Lyra turn foreign an Apostate. So then the meaning is, It is unlawfull to reproach earthly Princes and men of place, farre more is it unlawfull to reproach the Judge of the whole earth with injustice. And what then? We may not reproach the King, as Shimei cursed King David, Ergo, it is unlawfull to resist the King in any tyrannous act: I shall deny the consequence. Nay, as Pineda observeth, if the Royalist presse the words literally, it shall not be lawfull for Prophets to reprove Kings of their sins. Christ called Herod a Fox, Elias Ahab, Luk. 15.32.Luke 15:32one that troubled Israel.

Obj. 10. Act. 23. Paul excuseth himselfe that he called Ananias the High-priest a whited wall.

Answ. Rivetus, Exo. 22. learnedly discussing the place, thinketh Paul, professing he knew him not to be the High-Priest, speaketh ironically, that he could not acknowledge such a man for a Judge. Piscator answereth, he could not then cite Scripture, It is written, Exod. &c. Ans. But they may well consist, in that act of smiting Paul unjustly, he might be reproached, otherwise it is not lawfull to reproach him; and surely it is not like that Paul was ignorant that he was a Judge. Yea it is certain he knew him to be a Judge. p. 3601. He appeared before him as a Judge, to answer for himselfe. 2. Paul saith expresly he was a Judge, ver. 3. Sittest thou to judge me after the Law? &c. and therefore the place is for us, for even according to the mind of all, the fault was (if there were any) in calling him a whited wall: and he resisted him in judgement, when he said, Commandest thou me to be smitten against the Law? 2. Though Royalists rather put a fault on the Apostle Paul now in the act of prophecying judgement against Ananias, which after fell out, then upon their God the King; yet the consequence amounteth but to this, We may not revile the High Priest, Ergo we may not resist the Ki…g in his illegall commandments. It followeth not. Yea it should prove, if a Prelate come in open war to kill the innocent Apostle Paul, the Apostle might fly or hold his hands, but might not re-offend: Now the Prelate is the High Priests successor, and his base person so is as sacred as the person of the Lords Anointed, the King. Hence the Cavalliers had in one of their Colours which was taken by the Scots at the battle of Marston, Iul. 2. An. 1644 the Crowne and the Prelates Mitre painted with these words, Nolite tangere Christos meos, as if the Antichristian Mitre were as sacred as the lawfull Crowne of the King of Brita…ne.

Obj. 11. Ferne, sect. 9.56. If the Senate and people of Rome, who a little before had the supreme Government over the th…n Emperors, that of Subjects had made them Lords, might not resist their Emperours, much lesse can the peopl… of England have power of resistance, against the succession of this Crowne, descending from the Conqueror, who by force of Armes, but in justice, conquered the Kingdom.

Answ. 1. Though the Roman Emperours were absolute (of which I much doubt) and th…ugh the Senate had made them absolute, I deny that therefore they cannot be resisted. T…e unlawfull resistance condemned by Paul Rom. 13. is not upon the ground of Absol…tenesse, which is in the Court of God nothing, being never ordained of God, but upon reasons of conscience, b…cause the powers are of God, and ordained of God. But some may say, Volenti non fit injuria, If a people totally resigne their power, and swear non-resistance to a Conqueror, by compact, they cannot resist. I answer, neither doth this follow, because it is an unlawfull compact, and none is obliged to what is unlawfull. For 1. it is no more lawfull for me to resigne to another my power of naturall self-defence, then I can resigne my power to defend the innocent drawne to death, and p. 361the wives, children and posterity that God hath tyed me unto. 2. The people can no more resigne power of self-defence, which Nature hath given them, then they can be guilty of self-murther, and be wanting in the lawfull defence of Kingdome and Religion. 3. Though you make one their King with absolutenesse of power, yet when he use that transcendent power, not for the safety, but for the destruction of the State, it is knowne they could not resigne to another that power which neither God nor nature gave them, to wit, a power to destroy themselves. 2. I much doubt if the Roman Emperour was absolute, when Paul wrote this. Iustinian saith so, Digest. l. 2. tit. 2. but he is partiall in this cause. Bodine de repub. l. 2. c. 5. pag. 221. proveth that the Roman Emperours were but Princes of the Common-wealth, and that the Soveraignty remained still in the Senate and people. Marius Salamon. writeth sixe Books, De Principatu, on the contrary. How could they make their Emperours absolute? Livie saith, The name of a King was contrary to a Senate liberty. Florus, Nomen Regis invidiosum, They instituted a yearly Feast, February 23. called Regifugium. Cicero, as Augustine observeth, Regem Romae post haec nec Dii, nec homines esse patiantur. The Emperours might doe something de facto, but Lex Regia was not before Vespasians time. Augustus took on him to be Tribune of the people, from ten yeares to ten. Suetonius and Tacitus say, The succeeding Kings encroached by degrees upon the peoples liberty. For speedier execution of Law, the Kings in time of Warre were forced to doe many things without the Senate, and after the reigne of Emperours, though there were no Plebescita, yet there were Senatusconsulta, and one great one is, that the Senate declard Nero to be an enemie to the State. It is thought, Iulius Caesar in the warre against Pompey, subdued the Romans, and the Senate, and they were subdued againe in the battaile of Octavius, against Cassius and Brutus. But Tacitus saith, that was de facto, not de jure, Anal. l. 1. s. 2. Rome ruere in servitium, Consules, Patres, Eques. Caligula intended to assume Diadema, the Ensigne of a King, but his friends disswaded him. 3. England is obliged to D. Ferne, who maketh them a subdued Nation. The contrary of which is known to the world.

Obj. M. Simmons Loyall Subj. Beliefe, sect. 6. pag. 19. God is not honoured by being resisted, no more is the King.

Answ. I deny the consequence. Those who resist the Kings p. 362personall will, and will not suffer him to ruine his Crowne and posterity in following Papists, against his Oath at the Coronation, do honour him and his Throne and Race as a King, though for the time they displease him. 2. Vzz…ah was not dishonoured in that he was resisted. 3. Nor doe we honour the King, when we flee from him and his Law. Yet that resistance is lawfull, according to the way of Royalists; and in truth also.

Object. 12. Supreme power is not to be resisted by subordinate powers, because they are inferiour to the supreme.

Answ. The bloody Irish Rebels then being inferiour to the Parliament, cannot resist the Parliament. 2. Inferiour Judges as Judges are immediately subordinate to God as the King, and must be guilty of blood before God, if they use not the sword against bloody Cavalliers, and Irish cut-throats, except you say, inferiour Judges are not obliged to execute judgement, but at the Kings commandment.

Object. As the Irish Rebels are armed with the Kings power, they are superiour to the Parliament.

Answ. So an Armie of Turks and Spaniards, armed with the Kings power, and comming against the two Kingdomes, at the Kings commandement, though they be but Lictors in a lawlesse cause, are superiour to the highest Courts of Parliament in the two Kingdomes. But the King and the Law gave power to the Parliament, first to resist Rebels; now he giveth power to Rebels to resist the Parliament: here must be contradictory wils, and contradictory powers in the King; Which of them is the Kings will, and his power? the former is legall and Parliamentary; Then, because Law is not contrary to Law, the latter cannot be legall also, nor can it be from God; and to resist it then is not to resist God.

Object. 13. If resistance bee restrained to legall commandements, What shall we say to these arguments, that Paul forbiddeth resistance under these tyrannous governours, and that from the end of their government, which is for good, and which their subjects did in some sort enjoy under them?

Answ. 1. This proveth nothing, but that we are to cooperate with these governours, though tyrannous, by subjecting to their Laws, so farre, as they come up to this end, the morall good and peace of their government; but Paul no where commandeth absolute subjection to tyrannous governours in tyrannous act…; which is still the question.

p. 363Object. 14. Hee that hath the supreme trust next to God, should have the greatest security to his person and power; but if resistance be lawfull, he hath a poore security.

Answ. He that hath the greatest trust, should have the greatest security to his person and power, in the …eping his power, and using it according to his trust, for its owne native end, for justice, peace, and godlinesse. God alloweth security to no man, nor that his Angels shall guard them, but on…ly when they are in their wayes, and the service of God; else, There is no peace to the wicked.

2. It is denyed that one man having the greatest trust should have the greatest security; the Church and people of God, for whose safety he hath the trust, as a meanes for the end, should have a greater security; the City ought to have greater security then the watchers, the Armie then the leaders; The good Shepherd giveth his life for his sheepe.

3. A power to doe ill, without resistance, is not security.

Object. 15. If God appoint Ministers to preach, then the sheep cannot seeke safety elsewhere. Ergo.

Answ. The wife is obliged to bed and board with her husband, but not if she feare he will kill her in the bed. The obedience of positive duties that subjects owe to Princes, cannot loose them from Natures law of self-preservation, nor from Gods Law, of defending Religion against Papists in Armes; nor are the sheep obliged to intrust themselves, but to a saving shepherd.

Object. 16. If self-defence, and that by taking up Armes against the King, he an unlawfull duty, how is it that you have no practise, no precept, no promise for it in all the word of God? 1. You have no practise; Ahab sold himselfe to do evill, he was an Idolater, and killed the Prophets; and his Queene a bloody Idolatresse, stirred him up to great wickednesse: Elias had as great power with the people as you have, yet hee never stirred up the people to take Armes against the King. Why did God at this time rather use an extraordinary meanes of saving his Church? Arnisaeus de autho. Princ. c. 8. but Elias only fled. Nebuchadnezer, Ahab, Manassah, Julian were Tyrants and Idolaters, the people never raised an Armie against them. B. Williams of Ossorie, p. 21. Deut. 14. If brother, son, daughter, wife or friend intice thee to follow strange gods, kill them, not a word of the father: Children are to love Fathers, not to kill them. Prelat. Sac. sanc. maj. c. 5. n. 6.Christ (saith John P.P.) in the cradle, taught by practise to flee from Herod; and all Christs p. 364acts and sufferings are full of mysteries, and our instructions: Hee might have had legions of Angels to defend him, but would rather worke a miracle, in curing Malchus eare, as use the sword against Caesar. If Sectaries give us a new Creed, it will concerne them neere with expunging Christs descent into hell, and the communion of Saints, to raze out this, He suffered under Pontius Pilate—My resolution is (for this sin of yours) to dissolve in teares and Prayers, and with my Master say daylie and hourely, Father forgive them, &c. Christ thought it an uncouth spirit, to call for fire from heaven to burne the Samaritans, because they refused him lodging. 2. The Prophets cried out against Idolatry, blasphemy, murther, adultery, &c. and all sins; never against the sin of neglect, and murtherous omission to defend Church and Religion against a tyrannous King. 3. No promise is made to such a rebellious insurrection in Gods word.

Answ. It is a gr…at non-cons…quence; this duty is not practised by any examples in Gods word. Ergo. It is no duty. Practice in Scripture is a narrow rule of faith:The objection that G…ds Prophets never … non-resistance as a murtherous omission, and that God… people in Scripture never pract…s…d resista…c…, a…d God n…v…r c…mma…de… it, …lly …nsw…red. Shew a practice when a husband stoned his wife, because she inticed him to follow strange Gods. Yet it is commanded, Deut. 13.6. when a man lying with a beast is put to death: Yet it is a Law, Exod. 22.19. infinite more Lawes are, the practise of which we finde not in Scripture. 2. Iehu and the Elders of Israel rooted out Ahabs posterity for their Idolatry; and if Iehu out of sincerity, and for the zeale of God, had done what God commanded, he should have beene rewarded: for say that it was extraordinary to Iehu, that he should kill Ahab, yet there was an expresse Law for it, that he that stirreth up others to Idolatry should die the death, Deut. 13.6. and there is no exception of King, or Father in the Law, and to except father or mother in Gods matters, is expresly against the zeale of God, Deut. 33.9. And many grave Divines think the people to be commended in making Iehu King, and in killing King Nabad, and smiting all the house of Iereboam for his Idolatry; they did that which was a part of their ordinary duty, according to Gods expresse Law, Deut. 13.6, 7, 8, 9. though the facts of these men be extraordinary. 3. Ahab and Iezabel …ais…d not an Armie of Idolaters, Malignants, such as are Papists, Prelates, and Cavalliers, against the three Estates, to destroy Parliaments, Lawes and Religion, and the people conspired with Ahab in the persecution and Idolatry, to forsake the Covenant throw dowwe the Altars of God, and slay his Prophets, so as in the estimation p. 365of Elias, 1 King. 19.9, 10, 11. there was not one man, but they were Malignant Cavalliers, and hath any Elias now power with the Cavalliers, to exhort them to rise in Armes against themselves, and to shew them it is their duty to make warre against the King and themselves, in the defence of Religion? when the Prophets had much adoe to convince the people, that they sinned in joyning with the King, what place was there to shew them their sin, in not using their owne lawfull defence? And in reason any may judge it unreasonable, for Elias to exhort, of thousand thousands in Israel; poore seven thousand (of which many no doubt were women, aged, weake, young) to rise in Armes against Ahab and all Israel, except God had given a positive and extraordinary Commandement, and with all miraculous courage and strength in war against the whole Land;Nota. and God worketh not alwayes by miracles to save his Church, and therefore the naturall mandate of self-preservation in that case doth no more oblige a few weake ones to lawfull resistance, then it obliged one Martyre to rise against a persecuting Nero and all his forces. Arnisaeus should remember wee are not to tye our Lord to miracles.

2. Elias did not onelyonly flee, but denounced wrath against the King, and Cavalliers, who joyned with them in Idolatry, and when God gave oportunity, he shewed himself, and stirred the people up to kill Baals Iesuits and seducing idolatours, when the Idolatrous King refu…ed to do it, and Eliah with his own hand took them not, but all Israel being gathered together, 1 King. 18.19. The Princes and Judges did apprehend them, ver. 40. which is a warrant, when the King refuseth to draw the sword of justice against armed Papists, that other judges are to do it. 2. For Nebuchadnezzer, Ieremiah from the Lord, expresly forbad to fight against him, shew us the like for no defending our selves against bloody Papists and Irish cut-throats: for that example may as well prove (if it be a binding law to us) that our King should not raise his Subjects, to fight against a Spanish Armado, and a forraigne Pri…ce; for before ever Nebuchadnezzer subdued the Kingdom of Iudah Ier. 27.1. In the beginning of the raigne of Iehoiakim, ver. 12, 13, 14. chap. 36. chap. 37. the King of Iudah is from the Lord commanded, not to draw a sword against the King of Babylon; I hope this will not tye us, and our King, not to fight against forraigne Princes, or against the great Turk, if they shall injustly invade us and our King, and this example p. 366is against the Kings resisting of a forraigne Prince unjustly invading him, as much, as against us, for Nebuchadnezzar was a Tyrannous invader, and the King of Iudah the Lords Annoynted. 3. The people also conspired with Manasseh, as with Ahab, Ier. 15.4. 4 Of Emp…rours persecuting Christians we shall heare anon. 5. Deut. 13. None are excepted, by a synecdoche, the dearest are expressed, sonne, daughter, brother, the friend that is as thine own soul. Ergo, fathers also. And husbands are to love their lives. Ephes. 5.25. Yet to execute judgement on them, without pitty, Deut. 13.8.9. The father is to love the son, yet if the son prophecy falsely in the name of the Lord, to kill him. Zach. 13.3. Hence love, fear, reverence toward the King may be commanded, and defensive warres also. 6. Christ fled from Herod, and all his actions and sufferings are mysteries and instructions, saith the poor Prelate. 1. Christ kissed the man that to his knowledge came to betray him, Christ fled not, but knowing where, and when his enemy should apprehend him, came willingly to the place.…. 6. … ▪ 234. Sheweth the reasons, why Christ …ndemned …, n…t because he thought felt de…e…ce unlawfull, … 1. it had a kind of revenge in it. …or so, …ew could not repel such an army as ca…e to take Christ. 2. He waited n…t on Christs answer. 3. He could have defended himself …noth…r way. 4. It was contrary to Gods will reve…led to Pet…. Ergo, we should not flee. 2. His actions are so mysterious that Iohn P. P. in imitation of Christs fourty dayes fast, will fast from flesh in lent, and the Prelate must walk on the sea, and work miracles, if all Christs actions be our instructions. 7. He might with more then twelve L…gions of Angels defend himself, but he would not, not because resistance was unlawfull, no shadow for that in the text, but because it was Gods will, that he should drink the cup his Father gave him, & because to take the sword without Gods warrant, subjecteth the usurper of Gods place to perish with the sword. Peter had Gods revealed wil, that Christ behoved to suffer, Math. 26.52, 53. Math. 16.21, 22, 23. & Gods positive command that Christ should die for sinners, Iohn 10.24. may well restraine an act of lawfull s…lf-preservation, hic & nunc, and such an act as Christ lawfully used, at another time, Luk. 4.29▪30. Ioh. 11.7, 8. we give no new creed, but this apostate hath forsaken his old creed, & the religion of the Church of Scotland, in which he was Baptised. 9. Nor do we expu…ge out of the Creed Christs descension into hell, & the communion of Saints, as the apostate saith, but the Popish locall descension of Christ, & the Popish advancing of the Churches power above the Scriptures▪ & the intercession & prayers to the saints, or of the saints for us, we deny, & this Prelate, though he did swear the doctrine of the Church of Scotland, preached expresly all these & many other poynts of Popery in the Pulpits of Edenburgh. 10. We beleeve that p. 367Christ suffered under Pontius Pilat, but that Pilat had any legal power to condemne Christ, (but onelyonly a power by a permissive Decree, Act. 4.27, 28. Such as Devils had by Gods permission, Luke. 22.53.) we utterly deny. 11. The Prelat saith it is his resolution, for our sin of naturall selfe defence, to dissolve in tears, because his Bishopricke (I conceive) by which he was wont to dissolve in cups, (being drunk on the Lords day, after he (with other Prelates) had been at the Lords Supper, while the Chamber wherein they were, was dissolved in vomitting,) was taken from him. 12. The prophets cry against all sins, but never against the sin of non-resistance, and yet they had very Tyrannous and Idolatrous Kings. 1. This is but a weak argument. 1. The Prophets cry not out against all sins, they cry not out against men-stealers, and killers of father and mother in expresse tearmes, yet do they by consequence condemne all these sins, and so do they condemne non-resistance in wars, by consequence, when they cry out Ier. 5.31. The Prophets prophesie falsly, and the Priests beare rule by their meanes, and my people love to have it so. And when they complaine, Ezek. 22.26, 27, 28. That the Prophets and Priests violate the Law, her Princes are like wolves ravening the prey, to shed blood, and the people use oppression, and exercise robbery, and vexe the poore. And when they say, Ier. 22.2. not to the King onelyonly, but also to his servants, and the people that enter in by the gates, 3. Execute judgement and righteousnesse, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressour. I pray you, who are the oppressors? I answer, The murthering Judges, Esa. 1.21. And Esa. 3.12. As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them: The Prophets cry against the sin of non-resistance, when they cry against the peoples not executeing judgement for the oppressed, and not relieving those that were crushed in the gate.And ver. 14, 15. The ancients of the people grind the faces of the poore: and when they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth. And Prov. 24.11. the Lo…d shal render to these men according to their works, which forbeare to help men that are drawn to death, and those that be ready to be slaine, if they shift the businesse, and say, Behold, we know not, doth not he that pondereth the heart, consider it? When therefore the Lords Prophets complaine that the people execute not judgement, relieve not the oppressed, help not and rescue not those that are drawn to death unjustly by the King, or his murthering Judges, they expresly cry out against the sin of non-resistance. 2. The Prophets cannot expresly and formally cry out against the Judges for non-resisting the King, when they joyne as …avening wolves with the King in these same acts of oppression, even as the Judge cannot formally p. 368impannell 24▪ men sent out to guard the travellers from an arch robber, if these men joyne with the robber, and rob the travellers, and become cut-throats as the arch robber is, he cannot accuse them for their omission in not guarding the innocent travellers, but for a more hainous crime, that not onelyonly they omitted what was their duty, in that they did not rescue the oppressed out of the hands of the wicked, but because they did rob and murther, and so the lesser sinne is swallowed up in the greater. The under-Judges are watchmen, and a guard to the Church of God; if the King turn a bosome robber, their part is, Ier. 22.3. to deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressour, to watch against domestick and forraine enemies, and to defend the flock from wolves, Ezek. 23.2, 3, 4. Ier. 50.6. to let the oppressed goe free, and to break every yoak, Esay 58.6. to break the jawes of the wicked, and pluck the spoile out of his teeth, Job 29.17. Now if these Judges turne Lyons, and ravening Wolves, to prey upon the flock, and joyne with the King, as alwayes they did when the King was an oppressor, his Princes made him glad with their lies, and joyned with him, and the people with both. Ier. 1.18. Ier. 5.1. Ier. 9.1. Mic. 7.1. Ezek. 22.24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31. Ier. 15.1, 2, 3. It is no wonder if the Prophets condemne and cry out against the hugest and most bloody crime of positive oppression formally and expresly, and in that their negative murthers in not releeving the oppressed must also be cryed out against. 13. The whole Land cannot formally be accused for non-resistance, when the whole Land are oppressors, for then they should be accused for not resisting themselves. 14. The King ought to resist the inferiour judges in their oppression of the people, by the confession of Royalists, then this argument cometh with the like force of strength on themselves, let them shew us practice, precept or promise in the Word,There is no warrant in the word, by precept, or practice, that the King and Cavalliers should rise, and oppose Princes and States, in a hostile w…y, for their conscience. where the King raised an Armie for defence of Religion, against Princes and people who were subverting Religion, and we shall make use of that same place of Scripture, to prove that the Estates and people who are above the King, (as I have proved) and made the King, may and ought to resist the King, with the like force of Scripturall truth, in the like case. 16. Royalists desire the like president of practice and precept for defensive warres: but I answer, let them shew us a practice where any King of Israel or Judah raised an Armie of Malignants, of Phylistims, Sydonians, Ammonites, against the Princes of Israel and Judah, conveened p. 369in an Assemblie, to take course for bringing home the captived Arke of God, and vindicating the Lawes of the Land, and raised an Armie contrary to the knowledge of the Elders, Princes, and Judges, to set up Dagon, or tollerate the worship of the Sydonian gods, and yet Princes, Elders, Judges and the whole people were obliged, all to flee out of Gods land, or then onelyonly to weep and request that the King would not destroy souls and bodies of them and their innocent posterities, because they could not in conscience, imbrace the worship of Dagon and the Sydonian gods: when the Royalist can parallel this with a precedent, we can answer, there was as smal apparency of precedency in Scripture, (except you flee to the law of nature) that 80 Priests the Subjects of King Vzziah should put in execution a penall Law against the Lords Annoynted, and that the inferiours, and subjects should resist the Superiour, and that these Priests with the Princes of the land should remove the King from actuall government, all his dayes, and crown his son, at least make the father their Prince and superiour (as Royalists say) as good as a Cypher? Is not this a punishment inflicted by inferiours upon a superiour, according to the way of Royalists? Now it is clear a worshipping of bread and the Masse commanded, and against law obtruded upon Scotland, by influence of the counsell of known Papists, is to us, and in it self as abominable as the worshiping of Dagon or the Sydonian Gods, and when the Kingdom of Scotland did but conveen, supplicat, and protest against that obtruded Idolatry, they were first declared rebels by the King, and then an army raised against them, by Prelates and Malignants, inspired with the spirit of Anti-christ, to destroy the whole land, if they should not submit soul and conscience to that wicked service.