The Sovereign Power of Parliaments and Kingdoms Part 3, Discourse 2 (2 of 4)

The Sovereign Power of Parliaments and Kingdoms Part 3 · Discourse 2 (2 of 4)

p. 81Thirdly,3. when any common or publick truſt is committed to three or more, though of 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 Caſtle be committed to a Captaine, Leutenant, 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, ſlayes, 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,bbCajetan. 2…. …ae. qu. 4. ar. 1. Ambroſe, Offic. l. 1. c. 36 Summa: Angelica, Roſella & Sylveſter, Tit. Bellum, and the Cloſſers on Gratian. Cauſa. 23. qu. 3. thoſe injuries which Allies and other neighbour States or Princes may with good Conſcience repulſe with 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 9. 3. c. 14. 4. 1 Cor. 9. 27. Phil. 2. 12. 1 Tim. 5. 8Lev 19:18Matt 22:39Rom 9:31 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 (o…t of the 5. Councell of Carthage; Auguſtine, Ambroſe, Hierom, Anaſtatius, Caliſtus and other)yyDe Jure Bell. l. 1. c. 14. 15. 16. Albericus Gentilis, zzCommonweale. l. 2. c. 5. l. 5. c. 6. Sect. 2. l. 3. c. 25. Sect. 4. 5. 6.John Bodin,a Huga Grotius, and Generally all …noniſts, Caſuiſts, Scho…lemen accord, may in many caſes with good conſcience, by for… of Arms repulſe from Subjects wrongfully oppreſſed, invaded, and tyrannically abuſed, the injuries offered them by their 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 Joſhua his ayding of the Gibeonites againſt the five Kings that made war againſt them, Joſh. 10. by the example of Jehoſhaphat, 1 Kin. 22. 2 Kings 3. Of the 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 ancie…t and late Examples in ſtory. Therfore Subjects themſelves 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; asccCauſ. 23. qu. 1. 2. Gratian, dd1a. 2ae. qu. … art. 10. & qu. 64. ar. 7. dub. 4.Ban…es, eel. 4. diſp. 5. art. 10. l. 5 qu. 1. art. 8.Seto, fflib. 21. c. 9. du. 8.Leſsius, ggl. 1. Contr Illuſt. 18.Vaſquius, hhp. 3.Covaruvi…s, iin 2. 2. 2 ae. qu. 64 art. …Aquinas, kkVerbo Bellum, par. … n. 3. & p. 2. & Homicidium. 3. q. 4.Sylveſter, llad l. ut vim. Di de Juſt. & Iure.Bartolus, mmIn rep. l. 1. & unde vi.Baldus, nnl. 11. c. 3. n. 147.Navarre, ooDe Iure Bel. l. 1. c. 13. 14.Albericus Gentilis, ppDe Jure Bel. l. 2. c. …Grotius and others, that private men by the Law of God, and nature, may in defence of their lives, chaſtities, 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 Sam. 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 Soveraine 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. Petr. Nau. l. 11. Ca 3. n. 147. Grotius. de Iure Belli. l. 2. c. 1. Sect. 4. Cajetan and other Schoolemen,) Innocents which onelyonly caſually hinder ones flight 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 owne life is dearer to him then anothers, which he here takes away onelyonly to preſerve his owne life, 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 Cavalleires 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 defendants, 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,Object. 1. is that of Numb. 16.uuDr. Ferne Sect. 2. p. …0. 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.**An appeale to thy Conſcience. p. 3. 4. 5. Eccl. 10. 20. Curſe not the King no not in thy thought, and curſe not the rich in thy bed-Chamber; (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. Jude 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 reſiſtance, (to make the Argument ſenſible,) and propoſe it thus: All curſing and reviling 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 he 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. Ergo, 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 …hether 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.fromqqAppeale 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,Anſw. The firſt is this; All the Kings Commands are to be kept of all his Subjects, 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. 3. 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. Neh. 13. 26.1 Kgs 112 Chr 9Neh 13:26 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 Jeroboam, 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, Ieremiah, 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 path 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. 22. 2.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 Fontif. 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. 27. 17. 18. 19. 20.2 Chr 27:172 Chr 27:182 Chr 27:192 Chr 27:20Azariah and the 40. Prieſts who withſtood King Vzziah when he would have offered incenſe, on the incenſe Altar, and thruſt him out of the Temple, telling him, it pertaineth not to thee Vzziah, to burne incenſe to the Lord, &c. Were no leſſe then Traytors. John 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. Eliiah 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 Ahaziah; Eliſha much to be ſhent for uſing ſuch harſh language to King Jehoram, 2 Kings 3. 13. 14. yea Samuel and Hanani deſerved the ſtrappado for telling King Saul, and Aſa, That they had done fooliſhly, 1 Sam. 13. 3. 2 Chron. 15.bb2 King. 1. 3. 4. 16.2 Kgs 1:32 Kgs 1:42 Kgs 1:16 9. 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 Pſ. 105. 14, 15 and the Revindication printed at Cambridge, 1643.Ps 105:14Ps 105:15 Pſal. 105. 14, 15. Touch not mine annointed. Ergo the King and his Cavaleers muſt not be ſo much as touched nor reſiſted, I wonder they did not as well argue, Ergo none muſt henceforth kiſſe his Majeſties hand (ſince 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 Chyrurgion 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,Anſw. not named by Dr Ferne, 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. 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 ſakes, ſaying, (even to king themſelves, namely to king Pharaoh, an king Abim…lech, Gen. 12. 10. to 20. Chap. 20. and 26 1. to 17. 29) Touch not mine Anointed, and do my Prophets no harm: Therefore not meant of kings. Secondly, becauſe theſe words were ſpoken directly and immediately of Abraham, Iſaac, Iacob, their wives and families, as it is evident by Verſe 6. the whole ſeries of the Pſalme, which is Hiſtoricall; the forecited Texts 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 private men, as Verſe 12. 13. Gen. 12. and 20. and 26 Chap. 36. 7. Chap. 37. 1. Deut. 23. 7. Hebr. 11. 13. reſolve. Thirdly, They were but very few men in number, Verſe 12. Geneſis 34. 30. they were Maſters 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. 12. 14. Gen. 26. 11. 29. Ier. 12. 14. 1 Ioh. 5. 18.Zeph 2:8Gen 20:6Job 1:11Gen 26:11Gen 26:29Jer 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 metap…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. 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 Non ſequitur.

Kings themſelves muſt not touch Gods ſpiritually anointed Saints and ſervants to do them harm; Ergo, if Kings do violently and unjuſtly make 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 force 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;hhGratian. cauſa. 23. qu. 3, 4, 5, 6. Where many Fathers are cited, to this purpoſe. Qui non pohibet malum quod poteſt, jubet; Qui poteſt obviare & perturbare perverſos & non facit, nihil eſt aliud quam favere eorum impietati: Nec caret ſcrupulo ſocietatis occultae, qui manifeſto facinori deſinit obvi…re. Qui 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 Arme 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 ſtrength 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 annointing 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 annointing 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. 9 2. c. 8. 14. Ezec…. 18. 24, 26. Ich. 16. 2.Eccl 9:2Scripture 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 king 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. to 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 …6Eglon, rr1 Sam. 15, 32, 33.1 Sam 15:321 Sam 15:33Agag, with other Heathen Kings, impriſoned, ſtabbed, hewen in pieces by the Iſraelites. If any obiect, Theſe kings were not actually annoynted, which they cannot prove, ſince ssIſay, 45, 10Cyrus 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, … 27.2 Kgs 9:27King Ioram and Ahaziah were both ſlain by Iehu, by Gods command; xx2 Chr. 31. 10. 6, 7.2 Chr 31:102 Chr 31:62 Chr 31:7Iehoaaz was depoſed by the King of Egypt, yy2 Ki. 2…, 6, 7Iehoiakim and Iehoiakin both depoſed, fettered and kept priſoners by the King of Babylon; p. 92bylone; who alſo^y app…eherded d…poſed, judicially condemned King Zedechiah, put out his eyes, and ſent him priſoner to B…hylon 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, 33.2 Kgs 14:33Amaziah King of Iudah was taken priſoner by Iehoaſh King of Iſrael. Infi…ite 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. … 3, ſ…ct 1, 2, Bodin Communwal. v. 3, l. 2, c. 5. Ioſeph De Bello Indaico, l. 1. c 10. 15.Homagers and Subjects to other Kings or Emperours, though annointed, may for Treaſons and Rebellions againſt them, he lawfully reſiſted, aſſaulted, impriſoned, depoſed, judged to death and executed, becauſe as to them they are but Subjects, notwith…anging their annointing, as appears by ſund…y preſidents in our own and forraign Hiſtories; and is generally confeſſed by the learned. Thirdly, the Roman, Greek and German Experours 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, Diets, 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 their titles and cont. ovdrſies de Immunitate Cleri…erum, Biſhop Latimers …ermon 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 ſolem… debates in Parliament, to prove their exemption from the arreſts, judgements, capitall cenſ…res 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 …undreds of yeeres. But in the ſeventh yeer of Hen. the 8. inffKeilwayes Reſorts, 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. r. p. 88. & Fox Act & Monuments.Fopes, Biſhops, and Clergy-men in all Kingdomes, ages, for all their annointing, have for their miſdemeanors not only been reſiſted, apprehended, impriſones, but deprived, degraded, hanged, quartered burned, as well as other men (Yeahh1 King. 2, 26, 27.1 Kgs 2:261 Kgs 2:27 Abiathar the High Priest was depoſed by S. …omon 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? Fifthly, among the Papiſts all infants, either in their p. 93baptiſme, or confirmation are actually annointed with their conſecrated iiSee Claudius E…ſencaeus Dig. ſ. in. P…o…. …piſt. ad Tim. d. c. riſmatis uſu p. 261, &c.Chriſme, and withkkEſpencaeus Ibid. See homas it aldenſis, Bellarmine and others, De Sacramento extremae u…ctiours, and all Schoolmen and Canoniſts, De Sacrame, torum Numero & Extrunct. extream unction to boot at laſt caſt, which they makellCat. log Gloriae Mu…di, par. 5. Conſid. 35. p. 40. Alber. de Re… Super G. of Rubr. F. d…ſta., ho. a Sacrament, and ſo a thing of more divine 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 king; therefore the very annointing of Kings cannot doe it. Sixthly, the Ceremony of annointing kings, asmmCaſſanaens Ibid. & Conſid. 19. 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 heſe 4. kings are actually anointed, yea lawfull Kings and their perſons ſacred, even before they are annointed or crowned, yea 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 divi…e authority, nor common to all Kings, who are nnCook 7. …eport. Calvins Caſ…c f. 11. Philoch. Arch. De Somnio Ver …, c. 171.Kings before their Coronations, it is moſt certain and infallible, that this enoyling in and of 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 Soul. Impeach the premiſes, 1 Sam. 24. 6. 10. c. 26. 9. 11. 2. & 2 Sam. 1. 12. 16. The Lord forbid that I ſhould do this thing unto my Maſter the Lords 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 he guiltleſſe? The Lord forbid that I ſhould ſtretch forth his hand againſt the Lords Annointed. The Lord delivered thee into my hand to day, but I would not ſtretch forth mine hand againſt the Lords Annointed. How wa… thou not afraid to ſiretch 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 Armes 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,Object. S. An…ſw. I anſwer, that Sauls bare annointing, 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 juſt violent 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 141 Sam 16:1–14 David, qq… king, 19. …, 16.Hazael, rr1 king. 19. 16. 2 king 9. 1. to 3.ſelu, 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. Soul 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. 16 1, 1 Chro. 28.1 Sam 12:131 Chr 28 Lords annointed, being but a periphraſis, or forme of ſpeech, wherein the Geremony 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. 10 14.1 Sam 16:11 Sam 16:10David 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 to in their own neceſſary defence? If not, then one Subject may not repulſe the unjuſt violence of another in an elective kingdome, if by poſſibility he may after wards 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: asaaSect. 2, p. 8. 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: Therefore he and his Guard would and might doubtleſſe have with a ſafe conſcience reſiſted,Sect, repulſed Sauls cut-throat Souldiers, had they aſſaulted David, to take away his life. And iffo, 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 ſlight 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 c. 3. 10 16.1 Sam 2 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 not any of his men did actually aſſault David or his followers, nor ſo much as once diſcover them; but Saul went caſually to cover his feet into the Cave, where they lay hid; which done, he roſe up and went on his way, not once eſpying David (though he cut off the skirt of his Robe privily) nor any of his men with him. To argue therefore, That David and his men might not with a ſafe conſcience ſtretch forth their hands and riſe up againſt their Soveraigne 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 aſſaulrs me not, Ergo, I may not reſiſt one that actually aſſaults me to take away my life, or to beat, rob, wound me: What Logick, Reaſon, Law or Divinitie is there in ſuch an argument? So after this whendd1. Sam. 26, … 7. to 251 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 affailants, 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 or water from his Bolſter, and departed, not being once diſcerned; No man reſiſts, aſſaults, diſcovers them. To ſlay Saul thus in cold blood, without any aſſault or preſent provocation, and eſpecially upon a private quartell, had been Treachery and impiety in a Son-in-Law, a Servant, a Subject a …ucceſſour; 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 S…veraign 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 juſtly with ſafe conſciences have forcibly defended themſelves againſt Saul and his Army, had they been aſſaulted by them in their own Trenches; is a tranſcendent abſurdity, refuted by the very next words of David to Abiſhai at that inſtant, 1 Sam. 26. 10. And David ſaid furthermore, As the Lord liveth, the Lord ſhall ſmite him, or his day ſhall come to die; or he ſhall DESCEND INTO BATTELL AND PERISH; which intimates, that if Saul would force him to a battell, then he might lawfully defend himſelfe againſt his violence, though he might not murther him now in his ſleep, when he did him no hard; 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 Palliſtines to the battell againſt Sanl, wherein he periſhed, 1 Sam. 2… (unleſſe we will taxe Davide for a notable Hypocrite and diſſembler) unanſwerably eviden…eth, 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 treacheouſly, 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 ſaly him, by his own command: Not that reſiſtance of him in the open battell was unlawfull in point of conſcience. Other anſwer might be given to this Objection concerning David and Saul. As 1. that this difference was but private and 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 had me kill thee, but mine eye SPARED THEE; and I ſaid, I will not put forth my hand againſt my Lord, for he is the Lords 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 THHE NOT, know then and ſee, that there is neither evill nor tranſgreſſion in mine hand, and I have not ſinned againſt thee, yet then hunteſt my ſoul to take it. The Lord judge between me & thee, and the Lord avenge me of thee, but mine hand ſhall not be upon thee, and plead my cauſe and deliver me out of thine hand. And after this upon the ſecond advantage, he uſeth like words, The p. 97Lord render to every man according to his right conſnes & faithfulnes, for the Lord delivered thee into my hand to day,1 Sam. 26. 23, 24.1 Sam 26:231 Sam 26:24 but 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 tribulations: 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 ſeruple 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 ſome what an unnaturall act in him. Thirdly, becauſe it had favoured 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 Saul life violently away. Moſt of which conſideration 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, where as I have rewarded thee evill: And thou haſt ſhewedme this day how thou haſt deals well with me; for aſmuch as when the Lord had delivered me into thine hand THOU KILLEDST ME NOT. For if a man finde his enemy WIL HE LET HIM GO WEL AWAY? Wherefore the Lord reward three 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 ſolve 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 Saul ffSect. 2. p. 2.EXTRAORDINARY; for he was annointed and deſigned by the Lord to ſucceed Saul; and therefore he might alſo uſe all extraordinary wayes of ſafe guarding his perſons; which like wiſe inſinua…es, that this his ſcruple of conſeience 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 obligatory to other ſubjects, but that they may lawfully in Davids caſe kill their Soveraigns; But Davids reſiſtauce of Saul by a guard of men, being only that ordinary way which all ſubjects in all ages have uſed in ſuch caſes, and that which nature teacheth not 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.Object. 7. Objection out of the Old Teſtament is this, 1. Sam. 8. 11. Samuel tells the people, how they ſhould be oppreſſed under kings;ggDr Fern, Reſolving of Conſcience, Sect. 2. p. 10. And others. yet all that violence and injuſtice that ſhould be done unto them, is no juſt cauſe of reſiſtance: for they have NO REMEDY LEFT THEM 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 anſwer 1.Anſwer. that by the Doctors own confeſſion, this text of Samuel, much urged by ſome of his fellows, to prove an abſolute divine Prerogative in Kings, is quite contrary to their ſuggeſtion; and meant onelyonly of the oppreſſion, violence, and inju… (not lawfull power) of Kings, which ſhould cauſe them thus to cry out to God This truth we have clearly gained by this objection, for which ſome 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 ba…ely, 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 parrallell inſtance. 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 bbExod. 14.Exod 14Moſes did againſt Pharaoh and his Hoſt, iiPſa. 59. I. 10 and other Pſal.Ps 59David 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 14:9Aſa 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 Round heads 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 deriſion 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 i… 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 **Match. 22. 23.Houſe is an Oratory for prayer: Ergo, they muſt not Preach (atleaſt, …ery ſeldom) or make his Houſe an Auditory for Preaching: Or as rationally reaſon from this Text, That Subjects muſt cry out to God againſt their 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, ſence; 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 Iudeh for their groſſe Iaolatry, cruelty, oppreſſion, did call upon the Elder 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, Anſw. 1.firſt, That none of the Prophets did ever forbid reſiſtance in ſuch caſes, under pain of Damnation, as our new Doctors do now; Ergo, it was lawfull, 2.becauſe not prohibited. Secondly, that as none of the people were then inhibited to reſiſt, ſo not dehorted from it: therefore they might freely have done it, had they had hearts and zeal to do it. 3.Thirdly, **Antique, 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, 4.cruelty oppreſſions. Fourthly, qqExplanat. 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… he…r Kings for their wickedneſſes and Idolatries; yea, That all the people were juſtly puniſhed by God, becauſe they removed not their flagitious, idolatrous Kings and Princes out of their places, which he proves by Ierem 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 ſtedding 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 overmuch 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 undeaneſſe, 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 griev…nſly puniſhed by God. We ought to pull and croſt away even our eye that offends ſo a hand and foot, &c. If the Iſraelites had thus DE OSED Manaſſch by conſent and ſuffrages of all, or the greateſt part of the multitude; they had not been ſo grievesſly puniſhed of God. So Zuinglius, with whom even ssThird Part of the True Difference between Chriſtion ſubjection, &c p. 513. 514.B. Rilſon himſelf in ſome ſort accords who in de ending & interpreting his opinion, c…nteſſeth, tt1 Sam. 14.1 Sam 14That it is a queſtion among the Learned, What Soveraignty the whole people of Iſrael had over their Kings; confeſſing, that the peoples reſouing Ionathan that he died not, when Saul would have put him to d…th,uu1 Chron. 13.1 Chr 13 Davids ſpeech to the peo…le 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 theyyIer. 26.Jer 26 p…ople: ſpeech to Ieremy, Thou ſhalt die the death; have perſwaded ſome, and might lead Zuingli…s to think that the people of Iſrael, notwithstanding they called for a King, yet RE…ERVED TO THEMSELVES SVFFICIENT AVTHORITY TO OVERRVLE THEIR KING, IN THOSE THINGS WHICH SEEMED EXPEDIENT AND NEEDFVLL FOR THE PVBLIKE WLLFARE; 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 ſubjects 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 Ierohoams 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.y Yea, aa1 King. 12. 2 Chr. 10.1 Kgs 122 Chr 10did 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 leſſe, to your Tents ô Iſrael: now ſee to thine own houſe David. Whereupon they departed and fell away from the houſe of David ever after, and made Iereboam King over all Iſrael. And doth not the Text directly affirm? Whenefore 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 a way 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 out off the whole houſe of K. Ahab his Lard for his and Iezabels Idolatry and blood-ſhed, in flaying the Prophets, and unjuſtly executing Naboth for his Vineyard? in performance whereof he ſlew 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, 2 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 4. 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, nor Treaſon, nor Rebellion in Iehu, unleſſe the Oppoſites will charge God to be the author, approver, and rewarder of ſin, of Treaſon.

Neither will it ſerve their turns to Reply,Evaſion, Reply. that this was an extraordinary example, not to be imitated without ſuch a 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 Idolatrous 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. 1. 16 1, 2.1 Kgs 15:27–341 Kgs 15:11 Kgs 15:16 Thus we read, God ſtirred up Baacha, exalted out of the duſt, and made him a Prince over the houſe of Iſrael, who ſlew king Nadab, and ſmote all the houſe of Jeroboam, till he left him not any that breatned, becauſe of the ſins of Ieroboam which he ſinned, and which he made Iſrael ſin, by his provocations wherewith he provoked the Lord God of Iſrael to anger; who going on after in Ieroboams ſins,ddr Kings 16. 1, to, 20. God threatens to out 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… …chu the Prophet. Which act of Zimri, though a juſt judgement in regard of God, on the family of Baacha for their Idolatry, was notwithſtanding reputed Treaſon in Zimri, becauſe he did it not out of Conſcience or zeal againſt Idolatry, being, and continuing an Idolater himſelf; but 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, 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, 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. Soff2 King. 15.2 Kgs 15 Zachariah, Shallum, Pekahiah, Pekah, four evill Kings of Iudah, ſucceſſivly acquiring the Crown by murther, and reigning evilly in Gods fight, 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 him Laws, keep his Covenant, otherwiſe if they did wickedly for ſake him, or commit idolatry, he would deſtroy, forſake, and caſt them and their ſeed off from being **1 Sam. 12. 14. 19, 25. 2 Sam. 7. 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, Pſa. 89. 30, 31, 32, O Chro. 28. 7, 8, 9. 1 Kin. 11. 9, 10, 11, 12. 32, 38. 1 Sam. 19. 23, 26, 27, 28 29, 25 c. 16. 1. comfared with Deut. 7. 16 to the end.1 Sam 12:141 Sam 12:191 Sam 12:252 Sam 7:112 Sam 7:122 Sam 7:142 Sam 7:152 Sam 7:16Ps 89:30Ps 89:31Ps 89:321 Kgs 11:91 Kgs 11:101 Kgs 11:111 Kgs 11:121 Kgs 11:321 Kgs 11:381 Sam 19:231 Sam 19:261 Sam 19:271 Sam 19:28Deut 7:16Kings. 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. 3 c, 3. 33. 34. c. 4 to 7. c. 15 to the end of, c. 22. 2 King. c. 1. to the end of 6. 25. 2 Chro. 10. 1. to the end of c. 24.1 Kgs 12:32 Kgs 12 Chr 10:1their 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 conſidere, this object on 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 by aſſed 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.Object 9.

The ninth and moſt materiall hhDr Ferne, Sect. 2. p 10, 11, 12 ande ſewhere. The neteſſitie of Chriſtian Sub…ection, Oxford, 1643. Appeal to thy Conſcience, 1643. I he Lords Anointed, Oxford, 1643 with others.Objection, on which our Oppoſites principally 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 aſtanding 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 terror to good works, but evill, and he is the Miniſter 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 abſ…l…tely …d arburarily, which ſhould have according to the Principles of thoſe dayes beene aſtro…ger 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, deſ…nding 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 conſcience 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 Objectors hence conclude.

To give a ſatisfactory Anſwer to this grand Objection, I ſhall in the firſt place inquire, Whether there be any thing in this Text, Anſw.prohibiting ſubjects to reſiſt with Force the armed unjuſt violence of their 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 deducemy firſt Demonſtrations to prove this negative Aſſertion, from the occaſion inducing the Apoſtle to inſert theſe objected Verſes into this Epiſtle:iiSixſold Comment, on Rom. 13. Queſt. 1. p. 576.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 himſelfe; 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 ſubjects from due obedience to iuſt Pagan Magiſtrates, Ergo, Tyrants may not be reſiſted, neither ought the Parliament and their Forces to reſiſt the King Cavallcers 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 lews, 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, It is 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. Then are the Children free; and Ro. 6. We are not under the Law, but under Grace. …o 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 Prerog…tive of the …ews, not Liberty of Chriſtians exempts them from due ſubjection to l…wfull hea he … Magiſtrates, becauſe they are Gods Ordinance, Ergo, No Subjects can with ſafe conſcience defend themſelves in any caſe againſt the unjuſt invaſions of Tytannicall Princes or their Armies. A palpable Inconſequent.

Thirdly, the Apoſtle having formerly t…ught,**Rom. 12, 19,Rom 12:19 that Chriſtians might not avenge themſelves: leſt ſome might have inſerred thereupon (as many**O ſlander. Enchir contr. cap. …. de Magiſt. Polit. Anabaptiſts have done) that it was not 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 notto 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, ſlay, 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,nnParaus, Willet, So…o, and others. but the Devils, when they doe quite contrary,oo1 Pet. 5. 8.1 Pet 5:8 walking about like roaring Lions, ſeeking whom they may devoure, as the Devill doth; According to that reſolution of Bracton, and FletappLib. 3. c. 9. f. 107. Exercere debet Rex poteſtatem Iuri… ſicut Dei Vicarius & Miniſteri in terra, quia illa Potestas SOLIVS DEI EST potestas autem injuriae DIABOLI ET NON DEI; Cujus horum operum fecerit Rex ejus miniſter erit. Igitur dum facit juſtitiam, vicarius eſt Regis aeterni: MINISTER AVTEM DIABOLI dum declinat ad injuriam. Therefore they are ſo farre forth onelyonly to be obeyed and not reſiſted, qqFleta, l. 1. …. 17.as they are Gods Ordinance, and lawfull Magiſtrates, not as they are tyrants and the Devils Agents: we might have obeyed the evill ſpirits themſelves whiles they continued good Angels; Ergo we muſt not reſiſt them now they are turned Devils, is ill 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 ſet themſelves to ſubvert Religion, Lawes, Liberty, Propertie, and take away their lives, againſt all Lawes of God and Man; for which they themſelves incurre both rrIſay 14. 4. ro 23. 1 King. 1. 21, & 22. Pſal. 52. 1. to 7. Pſa. 7. 13. Pſa. 94. 10. 21. 23. Pſal. 140. 1. to 13.Isa 14:41 Kgs 1:211 Kgs 1:22Ps 52:1–7Ps 7:13Ps 94:10Ps 94:21Ps 94:23Ps 140:1–13temporall and eternall damnation, is ſuch 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.