Treatise of Civil Policy, Treatise · Question 34

Treatise of Civil Policy · Treatise · Question 34

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

VVHat reaſons have already been diſcuſſed, I touch not. Reaſons againſt the lawfulneſſe of reſiſtance made to unjuſt violence, anſwered.Obj. 1. Arniſaeus de authorit princip. c. 2. num. 2. If we are to obey our parents, not if they be good, 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 infiction 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 …ſſentially 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 people 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 g…ve 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 didit.

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. excepteth none. Se… 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 fignifieth 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 figh… with the ſixth, for all reſiſtance is againſt the judge, as a man exceeding 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 the ſence 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 heeforeign will or deſireth, 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 foureſcore 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 ofHerod. l. 7. de Xerxe. God, 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 theſe things with a humane and a ſinfull will, if therefore this be the Royaliſts 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 are 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) …icked, and to Princes, (Ye are) ungodly? Ergo, You may not reſi…. 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 inferiour, ſhould not be reſiſted, for foreign ſignifieth all that, and it ſignifieth liber all, 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. So thenVulgar verſion and Lyra turn foreign an Apoſtate. 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, one that troubled Luk. 15. 32.Luke 15:32Iſrael.

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 King 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, lul. 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 Britaine.

Obj. 11. Ferne, ſect. 9. 56. If the Senate and people of Rome, who a little before had the ſupreme Government over the then Emperors, that of Subjects had made them Lords, might not reſiſt their Emperours, much leſſe can the people 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 though the Senate had made them abſolute, I deny that therefore they cannot be reſiſted. The unlawfull reſiſtance condemned by Paul, Rom. 13. is not upon the ground of Abſoluteneſſe, 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 nonreſiſtance 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 …eath, 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 the…r 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. Ciccro, 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 t…n. 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. Vzziah 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 nor 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 lawl…ſſe 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 acts; 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 keeping 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 Angel… ſhall guard them, but onelyonly 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, be 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 Oſſerie, 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▪ ChildrenPrelat. Sac. ſanc. maj. c. 5. n. 6. are to love Fathers, not to kill them. 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 great non-conſequence; 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: Shew a practice when a husband The objection that Go…s Prophets never rebuked nonreſiſtance as a murtherous omiſſion, and that Gods people in▪ Scripture never pract…ſ…d reſiſtanc…, a…d God n…v…r commanded it, f…lly …nſw…red.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 Ieroboam fo… 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 raiſed 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 downe 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 wholeNota. Land; 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 ſeduceing idolatours, when the Idolatrous King refuſed 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 cutthroats: 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 Prince; 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 unjuſtly 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 Emperours 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 th… 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 willinglyRivet. in D… cal. in mand. 6. pag. 234. Sheweth the reaſons, why Chriſt condemned Peter, not becauſe he thought ſelf defence unlawfull, but 1. it had a kind of revenge in it▪ for ſo, few could not repel ſuch an army as ca… to take Chriſt. 2. He waited not on Chriſts anſwer. 3. He could have defended himſelf another way. 4. It was contrary to Gods will revealed to Peter. to the place. 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 Legions 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 ſelf-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 expunge 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 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.people, children are their oppreſſors, and women rule over them: 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 Lord ſhal render to th…ſe 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 nonreſiſting the King, when they joyne as ravening 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 robb…r, 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 …e…th, 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 nonreſiſtance, 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 orThere 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 way, for their conſcience. promiſe in the Word, 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.