QUEST. XXX. Whether or no Passive Obedience be a meane to which we are subjected in conscience by vertue of a Divine Commandement, and what a meane Resistance is. That Flying is Resistance. (1) to QUEST. XXX. Whether or no Passive Obedience be a meane to which we are subjected in conscience by vertue of a Divine Commandement, and what a meane Resistance is. That Flying is Resistance. (2)

QUEST. XXX. Whether or no Passive Obedience be a meane to which we are subjected in conscience by vertue of a Divine Commandement, and what a meane Resistance is. That Flying is Resistance. (1)

MUch is built, to commend patient suff[gap]ring of ill, and con [gap]emne all r[gap]sistance of Superiors, by Royalists, on the place 1 Pet. 2.18. Where we are commanded, being servants, to suffer buffets, not onely for ill doing, of good masters, but also undeservedly, and when we do[gap] well, we a[gap]e to suffer of these masters that are evi[gap]l; and so much more are we patiently, without Resistance, to suffer of Kings. B[gap]t it is cleare, the place is nothing against Resistance, as in these Assertions I cleare.

Assertion 1. Pati[gap]nt suff[gap]ring of wicked men, and violent resisting are not incompatible, but they may well stand together: So this consequence is the basis of the argument, and it is just nothing. To wit, Servants are to suff[gap]r u[gap]j[gap]stly wounds and [gap]u[gap]ting of their wicked Masters, and they a[gap]e to bear i[gap] patiently; Ergo, Servants are in conscience obliged to non-resistance. Now Scripture maketh this cl[gap]ar; The Church of God is to bear with all patience, the [gap] of the Lord, because she hath sinned, and to suffer of wicked enemies, which were to be troden as mire in the streets, Micah 7.9, 10, 11, 12. but withall they were not obliged to non-resistance, and not to fight against these enemies, yea they were obliged to fight against them also. If these were, Babilon, Iudah might have resisted and fought, if God had not giv[gap]n a speciall commandement of a positive law, that they should not fight, if these were the Assyrians and other enemies, or rather both, the people were to resist by fighting, and yet to endure patiently the indignation of the Lord. David did bear most patiently the wrong that his own son Absolon and Achitophel, and the people inflicted on him in pursuing him to take his life and the kingdom from him: as is cleare by his gracious expressions, 2 Sam. 15.25, 26. chap. 16. ver. 10, 11, 12. Psal. 3.1, 2, 3. Yea he prayeth for a blessing on the people, that conspired against him. Psal. 3.8. Yet did he lawfully resist Absalom, and the conspiratours, and sent out Ioab and a huge army in open battel against them. 2. Sam. 18.1, 2, 3, 4, &c. and fought against them. And were not the people of God patient to endure the violence done to them in the wildernes, by Og king of Bashan, Sihon

king of Heshbon, by the Ammorites, Moabites, &c? I think Gods law tyeth all men, especially his people, to as patient a suffering in wars, Deut. 8.16. God then trying and humbling his people, as the servant is to endure patiently, unjustly inflicted buffets, 1 Pet. 2.18. And yet Gods people at Gods command did resist these Kings and people, and did fight and kill them, and possesse their land, as the history is cleare. See the like Iosh. 11. ver. 18, 19. 2. One act of grace and vertue is not contrary to another. Resistance is in the Children of God an innocent act of self-preservation, as is patient suffering, and therefore they may well subsist in one. And so saith Amasa by the spirit of the Lord. 1 Chro. 12.18. Peace, peace be unto thee, and peace to thy helpers, for God helpeth thee. Now David in that, and all his help[gap]rs were resisters of King Saul. 3. The scope of the place 1 Pet. 2. is not to forbid all violent resisting, as is clear, he speaketh nothing of violent resisting either one way or other, but onely he forbiddeth revengefull resisting of repaying one wrong with another, from the example of Christ, who when he was reviled, reviled not again, when he suffered he threatned not. T[gap]erefore the argument is a falacy, ab [gap]o quod docitur [gap], ad illud quod dicitur [gap]. Though therefore the master should attempt to kill an innocent servant, and invade him with a weapon of [gap]. 1. Suddenly. 2. Without all reason or cause. 3. Vnavoidably, Doctor Ferne in that case doth free a Subject from guiltynesse, if he violently resist his Prince: Ergo the servant who should violently resist his Master in the aforesaid case, should, and might patiently suffer, and violently resist, notwithstanding any thing that Royalists can conclude on the contrary. 4. No Prince hath a Masterly or herile dominion over his subjects, but onely a free, ingenious, paternall and tutorly over-sight for the good of the people, Rom. 13.4. The Master, especially in the Apostle Peters time, had a dominion over servants, as over their proper goods.

2. Assertion. Neither suffering formally as suffering, and so neith[gap]r can non-resisting passive fall under any morall law of God, except in two conditions: 1. In the point of Christs passive obedience, he being the eternall God, as well as Man, and so Lord of his owne blood and life, by vertue of a speciall commandement imposed on him by his Father, was commanded to lay downe his life, yea and to be an Agent as well as a Patient in dying. Ioh. 10.18. Yea and actively he was to contribute somthing for his own death,

and [gap]ffer himself willingly to death, Mat. 28.20. And knowing the houre that he was to depart out of this world unto the Father, Iohn 13.1. would not onely not flee, which is to Royalists lawfull, to us a speciall point of resistance, Ioh. 14.31. Ioh. 18.4, 5, 6, 7. and but upbraided Peter, as the Agent of Sathan, who would disswade him to die, Mat. 16.22, 23. and would fight for him. And he doth not fetch any argument against Peters drawing of his sword, from the unlawfulnesse of self-defence, and innocent resistance, (which he should have done, if Royalists plead with any colour of reason from his example, against the lawfulnesse of Resistance and self-defence) but from the absolute power of God. 2. From Gods positive wil▪ w[gap]o commanded him to die, Mat. 26.53, 54. if therefore Royalists p[gap]ove any thing against the lawfulnesse of resisting Kings, when they offer (most unjustly) violence to the life of Gods servants, from thi[gap] one meerly extraordinary and rare example of Christ, the like wh[gap]reof was never in the world, they may from the same example prove it unlawfull to flee; for Christ would not flee, Psal. 40.6, 7. Heb. 10.6.7, 8, 9. Ioh. 14.31. Ioh. 18.4, 5, 6, 7. 2. They may prove that people sought by a Tyrant to be crucifyed for the Cause of God, or to reveale and discover themselves to an Armie of men who come to seek them, Ioh. 13.1, 2. Ioh. 18.4, 5, 6, 7. 3. That Martyrs are of purpose to goe to the place where they know they shall be apprehended and put to death, for this Christ did, and are willingly to offer themselves to the enemies Armie, for so did Christ, Ioh. 14.3. Mar. 14.41, 42. Mat. 26.46, 47. and so by his example, all the Parliament, all the Innocents of the Citie of London, and Assemblie of Divines, are obliged to lay downe Armes, and to goe to their owne death to Prince Rupert, and the bloody Irish Rebels. 4. By this example it is unlawfull to resist the cutthroats of a King, for Cesar in his owne Royall person, the High Priest in person came not out against Christ. Yea it is not lawfull for the Parliament to resist a Iudas, who hath [gap]led as a traiterous Apostate from the Truth and the Temple of Christ. 5. It is not lawful for innocents to defend themselves by any violence against the invasion of superiours in D. Fernes three cases, in which he alloweth resistance. 1. When the Invasion is sudden. 2. Vnavoidable. 3. Without all colour of Law and Reason. In the two last cases, Royalists defend the lawfulnes of self-defence. 6. If the example be pressed, Christ did not this and this, he resisted not with violence to save his

owne life, therefore we are to abstaine from resistance, and such and such meanes of self-preservation, then because Christ appealed not from inferiour Judges to the Emperour Caesar; who, no doubt, would have shewne him more favour, then the Scribes and Pharisees did, and because Christ conveyed not a humble supplication to his Soveraigne and Father Caesar, then because he proffered not a humble petition to Prince Pilate for his life, he being an innocent man, and his cause just, because he neither conduced an Orator to pleade his owne just cause, nor did he so plead for himselfe, and give in word and writ, all lawfull and possible defences for his own safety, but answered many things with silence, to the admiration of the Judge, Marke 15.3, 4 5. and was thrice pronounced by the Judge to be innocent, Luke 22. ver. 23. because▪ I say, Christ did not all these for his owne life, therefore it is unlawfull for Scotland and England to appeale to the King, to supplicate, to give in Appol[gap]g[gap]s, &c. I thinke Royalists dare not say so. But if they say, he would not resist, and yet might have done all these lawfully, because these be lawfull meanes, and resistance with the sword unlawfull; bec[gap]use, He that taketh the sword, shall perish by the sword. Let me Answer then, 1. They leave the argument from Christs example, who was thus farre subject to higher powers, that he would not r[gap]sist, and plead from the unlawfulnesse of resistance; this is petitio principii. 2. He that taketh the sword without Gods warrant, which Peter had not, but the contrary, he was himselfe a Sathan to Christ, who would but councell him not to die; but there is no shadow of a word to prove that violent resisting is unlawfull, when the King and his I[gap]ish cut-throats pursue us unjustly; onely Christ saith, when God may deliver extraordinarily by his Angels, except it be his absolute will, that his Son should drink the cup of death, then to take the sword, when God hath declared his will on the contrary, is unlawfull; and that is all: Though I doe not question but Christs asking for swords, and his arresting all his enemies to the ground, Ioh. 18.6. backward, is a justifying of selfe-defence. But hitherto it is cleare by Christs example, that he onely was commanded to suffer. Now the second case in which suffering falleth under a Commandement, is indirectly and comparatively, when it commeth to the election of the witnesse of Jesus, that it is referred to them, either to deny the truth of Christ and his name, or then to suffer death, the choise is apparently evident, and this

choise that persecuters referre us unto, is to us a Commandement of God, that we [gap]ust choose suffering for Christ, and refuse sinning against Christ: but the supposition must stand, that this alternative is unavoydable, that is not in our power to decline either suffering for Christ, or denying of Christ b[gap]fore men; otherwayes no man is to expect the reward of a witnesse of Iesus, who having a lawfull possible meanes of eschewing suffering, doth yet cast himselfe into suffering ne[gap]dlesly. But I prove that suffering by men of this world, falleth not formally and directly under any divine positive Law, for the Law of nature, what [gap]ver Arminians in their Declaration, or this Arminian excommunicate think with them, (for they teach that God gave a Commadement to Adam, to abstaine from such and such fruit with paine and trouble to sinlesse nature) doth not command suffering, or any thing contrary to nature as nature is sinlesse: I prove it thus, 1. What ever falleth under a positive Commandem[gap]nt of God, I may say here, und[gap]r any Commandement of God, is not a thing under the freewill and power of others, from whom we are not discended necessarily by naturall generation, but that men of the world kill me, even these from whom I am not d[gap]scended by naturall generation (which I speake to exclude Adam, who killed all his posterity) is not in my free will, either as if they had my common nature in that act, or as if I wer[gap] accessory by counsell, consent, or approbation to that act, for this is under the free-will and power of others, not under my owne free-will: Ergo, that I suffer by others is not under my free-will, and cannot fall under a Commandement of God: And certainly, it is an irrationall Law, (glorified be his name) that God should command Antipas either formally to suffer, or formally not to suffer death by these of the Synagogue of Sathan, Revel. 2.13. because if they be pleased not to kill him, it is not in his free-will to be killed by them; and if they shall have him in their power (except God extraordinarily deliver) it is not in his power, in an ordinary providence, not to be killed. 2. All these places of Gods word, that recommendeth suffering to the followers of Christ, do not command formally that we suffer; Ergo, suffering falleth not formally under any Commandement of God; I prove the Antecedent, because i[gap] they be considered, they prove onely that comparatively we are to choose rather to suffer, then to deny Christ before men, Mat. 10.28, 32. Revel. 2.13. Mat. 10.37. Mat. 16.24. c. 19.29.

or then they command not suffering according to the substance of the passion, but according to the manner, that we suffer willingly, cheerfully, and patiently. Hence Christs word to take up his Crosse, which is not a meere passion, but commendeth an act of the vertue of patience. Now no Christian vertue consisteth in a meer passion, but in laudable habits, and good and gracious acts, and the Text we are now on, 1 Pet. 2.18, 19. doth not recommend suffering from the example of Christ, but patient suffering, and so the word [gap], not simply enjoyned, but [gap], in all feare, ver. 18. and the words [gap] and [gap], to suffer with patience, as 2 Tim, 3.11. 1 Cor. 10.13. and [gap] is to suffer patiently, 1 Cor. 13.7. Love, [gap], suffereth all things, Heb. 12.17. if you suffer correction, 1 Tim. 5.5. She continueth patiently in prayers, Heb. 12.2. Christ endured the Crosse (patiently) & Rom. 15.5. Rom. 8.25. Luk. 8.15. & 21.29. the derivats hence signifie patience, so doe all our Inter[gap]reters, Beza, Calvin, Marlorat, and Popish expositors, as Lorinus, Estius, Carthusian, Lyra, Hugo Cardinali[gap] expound it of patient suffering, and the text is clear, it is suffering like Christ, without rendring evil for evil, and reviling for reviling. 3. Suffering simply according to substance of the passion (I cannot say action) is common to good and ill, and to the wicked, yea to the damned in hell, who suff[gap]r against their will, and that cannot be joyned according to its substance as an act of formall obedi [gap]nce and subjection to higher powers, Kings, Fathers, Masters, by force of the fifth commandement, and of the place Rom. 13.1, 2. Which according to its substance, wicked men suffer, and the damned in hell also against their will. 4. Passive obedience to wicked Emperours can but be enjoyned, Rom. 13. but onely in the manner, and upon supposition, that we must be subject to them, and must suffer against our wills, all the ill of punishment, that they can in[gap]lict, we must suffer patiently; and because it is Gods permissive will that they punish us unjustly; for it is not Gods ruling and approving will (called voluntas signi) that they should against the law of God and man kill us, and persecute us, and therefore neither Rom. 13. nor 1 Pet. 2. nor any place in Gods word, nor any common Divin[gap], naturall, of nations, or any municipal Law commandeth formally obedience passive, or subjection passive, or non-resistance under the notion of passive obedience, yea to me obedience passive, (if we speak o[gap] obedience properly called as relative essentially to

QUEST. XXX. Whether or no Passive Obedience be a meane to which we are subjected in conscience by vertue of a Divine Commandement, and what a meane Resistance is. That Flying is Resistance. (2)

a law) is a chymera, a dream, and repugnantia in adjecto, and therefore I utterly deny that resistance passive or subjection passive, doth formally fal under either commandment of God affirmative, or negative, onely the unlawfull manner of resistance by way of revenge, or for defence of Popery and false Religion, and out of impatient tolleration of Monarchy or any Tyranny is forbidden in Gods word, and certainly all the words used Rom. 13. as they fall under a formal commandement of God, or words of action, not of any Chymericall passive obedi[gap]nce, as we are not to resist actively Gods ordinance, as his ordinance, ver. 1.2. that is, to resist God actively. 2. We are to do good works, not evil, if we would have the ruler no terror to us, ver. 3. 3. We must not do ill, if we would be free of vengeances sword: ver. 7. we are to pay tribute and to give fear and honour to the ruler, ver. 7. [gap]ll which are evidently actions, not passive subjection, and if any passive subjection be commanded, it is not here, nor in the first commandement, commanded, but in the first commandement under the hand of patience and submission under Gods hand in sufferings, or in the third commandement under the hand of rather dying for Christ, or denying his truth before men; hence I argue here Rom. 13. and 1 Pet. 2. and Tit. 3. is nothing else, but an exposition of the fifth commandement, but in the fifth commandement onely active obedience is formally commanded, and the subordination of inferiours to superiours is ordained, and passive obedience is no where commanded, but onely modus rei, the manner of suffering, and the occasion of the commandement, here it is thought that the Iewes converted under this pretext, that they were Gods people, beleeved that they should not be subject to the Romans. A certaine Galilean made the Galileans beleeve that they should not pay tribute to Strangers, and that they should call none Lord, but the God of heaven, as Ioseph, saith, Antiq. Iudaic. l. 20. c. 2. and De bell. Iudaic. l. 7. c. 29. yea and Hieron. Com. in 3. Tit. saith, At this time the sect of the Galileans were on foot. It is like the Jews were thought to be Galileans, and that their liberty purchased in Christ could not consist with the order of master and servant, King and subject. And to remove this, Paul establisheth Magistracie, and commandeth obedience in the Lord; and he is more to prove the office of the Magistrate to be of God, then any other thing; and to shew what is his due, then to establish absolutenesse in Nero to be of God; yea to me, every word in the Text speaketh limitednesse of

Princes, and cryeth downe absolutenesse: 1. No power of God, 2. No ordinance of God, 3. Who is a terror to evill, but a praise to good works, 4. No mini[gap]ter of God for good, &c. can be a power to which we submit our selves on earth, as next unto God, without controlment. 5. That passive obedience falleth formally under no commandement of God, I prove thus: All obedience lyable to a divine commandement, doth commend morally the performer of obedience, as having a will conformed to Gods morall Law, and deformity betwixt the will of him who performeth not obedience, involveth the non-obedient in wrath and guiltinesse. But non-passive subjection to the sword of the Judge doth not morally commend him that suff[gap]reth not punishm[gap]nt, for no man is formally a sinner against a morall law, because he suffereth not the ill of pu[gap]ishment; nor is he morally good, or to be commended, bec[gap]use hee suffereth ill of punishment, but be[gap]ause he doth the ill [gap]f sin. And all evil of punishment u[gap]justly inflicted hath Gods volun[gap]as beneplaciti, the instrumen[gap]all and hidden d[gap]cree o[gap] God, which order[gap]th both good and ill, Ephes. 1.11. for its rule and cause, and hath not Gods will of approbation called, voluntas signi, for its rule, both is contrary to that will; I am sure Epiphanius li. 1. tom. 3. heres. 40. Basilius in Psal. 32. Nazianzen Orat. ad subd. & imperat. Hilar. li. ad Constant. August. citeth these words, and saith the same. If then passive subj[gap]ction be not commanded, non subj[gap]ction passive cannot be forbidden, and this text, Rom. 13. and 1 Pet. 2. cannot a whit help the bad cause of Royalists; All then must be reduced to some action of resisting, arguments for passive subjection though there were ship-fulls of them, they cannot help us.

Assert. 3. By the place 1 Pet. 2. The servant unjustly buffeted is not to buffet his master again, but to bear patiently as Christ did, who when he was reviled, did not revile again. Not because the place condemneth resistance for self-defence, but because buffeting again is formally re-offending, not defending; defending is properly a warding of a blow or stroak: if my neighbour come to kill me, and I can by no means save my life by flight, I may defend my self, and all Divines say, I may rather kill, ere I be killed, because I am nearer by the law of natur[gap], and dearer to my self, and my own life then to my brother: but if I kill him out of malice, or hatred, the act of defending, by the unlawfull manner of doing, becometh an act of offending, and murther, whence the mind of the blood-shedder will

vary the nature of the action, from whence this corolarie doth naturally issue, that the physicall action of taking away the life maketh not murther, nor homicide, and so the physical action of offending my neighbour is not murther: Abraham may kill his son, he for whom the cities of refuge were ordained, and did kill his brother, yet not hating him, he was not, by Gods law, judged a murtherer. And 2. It necessarily hence followeth, that an act which is physically an act of offending my brother, yea even to the taking away of his life is often morally and legally an act of lawfull self-defence: an offending of another necessitated from the sole invention of self-defence is no more but an act of innocent self defence: if David with his men had killed any of Sauls men, in a set battel, David and his men onely intending self defence, the war [gap]n Davids part was meere defensive, for physicall actions of killing, indifferent of themselves, yet imp[gap]rated by a principle of naturall self-defence, and clothed with this formall end of self-defence, or according to the substance of the action, the act is of self-defence. If therefore one shall wound me deadly, and I know it is my death, after that, to kill the killer of my selfe, I being onely a private man, must be no act of self-defence, but of homicide, because it cannot be imperated by a sinlesse dictate of a naturall conscience, for this end of self-defence, after I know I am killed. Any mean not used for preventing death, must be an act of revenge, not of self-defence, for it is physically unsu[gap]able for the intended end of self-defence. And so for a servant buffeted, to buffet againe, is of the same nature: the second buffet not being a conducible meane to ward the first buffet, but a meane to procure heavier stroakes and possibly killing, it cannot be an act of self defence, for an act of self defence must be an act destinated ex natura rei, onely for defence, and if it be known to be an act of sole offending, without any known necessary relation of a mean to self-defence as the end, it cannot be properly an act of self-defence.

Assert. 4. When the matter is lighter, as in paying tribute, or suffering a buffet of a rough master, though unjustly, we are not to use any act of re-offending. For though I be not absolute Lord of my owne goods, and so may not at my sole pleasure give tribute and expend monies to the hurting of my children, where I am not by Gods Law or Mans Law obliged to pay tribute; and though I be not an absolute Lord of my members, to expose face, and cheeks, and back to stripes and whips at my owne meere will, yet have

we a comparative dominion given to us of God in matters of goods, and disposing of our members, (I think I may except the case of mutilation, which is a little death) for buffets, because Christ no doubt to teach us the like, would rather give of his goods, and pay tribute, where it is not due, then that this scandall lay on the way of Christ, that Christ was no loyall subject to lawfull Emperors and Kings. And 1 Cor. 9. Paul would rather not take stipend, though it was due to him, then hinder the course of the Gospel. And the like is 1 Cor. 6. where the Corinthians were rather to suffer losse in their goods, then to goe to Law before Infidel Judges, and by the like to prevent greater inconveniences, and mutilation, and death; the Christian servant hath that dominion over his members, rather to suffer buff[gap]ts, then to ward off buffets with violent resistance. But it is no consequent that innocent subjects should suffer death of tyrants, and servants be killed by masters, and yet that they shall not be allowed by the law of nature to defend themselves, by re-offending, when on[gap]ly self-defence is intended, because we have not that dominion over life and death. And therefore as a man is his brothers murther[gap]r, who, with froward Cain, will not be his brothers keeper, and may preserve his brothers life, without losse of his owne life, when his brother is unjustly preserved; so when he may preserve his owne life, and doth not that which Natures Law alloweth h[gap]m to doe, rather to kill ere he be killed, he is guilty of self-murther; because he is deficient in the duty of lawfull self-defence. But I grant to offend or kill is not of the nature of defensive warre, but accidentall ther[gap]unto, and yet killing of cut-throats sent forth by the illegal commandement of the King may be intended, as a mean and a lawfull mean of self-defence. 2. Of two ills of punishment, we have a comparative dominion over our selves, a man may cast his goods in the sea to redeeme his life. So for to redeeme peace, we may suffer buffets, but because death is the greatest ill of punishment, God hath not made it eligible to us, when lawfull self defence is at hand; But in defending our own life against Tyrannicall power, though we do it by offending and killing, we resist no ordinance of God, onely I judge killing of the King in self-defence not lawfull, because self-defence must be national, on just causes. Let here the reader judge, Barcley l. 3. c. 8. pag. 159. con. Monar. If the King (saith he) shall vex the Common-wealth or one part thereof, with great and intollerable cruelty; what shall the people do? they have

(saith he) in that case a power to resist and defend themselves from injury, but onely to defend themselves, not to invade the Prince,

nor to resist the injury, or to recede from reverence due to the Prince. I answer 1. Let Barclay or the prelate (if he may carry Barclayes books) or any, difference these two, the people may resist a Tyrant, but they may not resist the injuries inflicted by a Tyrants officers & cut-throats. I cannot imagine how to conciliate these two: for to resist the cruelty of a King, is but to hold off the injurie by resistance. 2. If this Nero waste the Common-wealth unsufferably with his cruelty, and remaine a lawful King, to be honoured as a King, who may resist him, according to Royalists way? but from Rom. 13. they resist the Ordinance of God. 3. Resisting is not a meere suffering, nor is it a morall resisting by alledging l[gap]wes to be broken by him. We had never a question with Royalists about such resisting. 2. Nor is this resisting non-obedience to unjust commandements; that resisting was never yet in question, by any, except the Papists, who in good [gap]arnest, by consequent, say, It is better to obey men, then God. 3. It is then resisting by bodily violence; but if the King have such an absolute power given him by God, as Royalists fancie from Rom. 13.1, 2. 1 Sam. 8▪9, 11. I know not how Sujects have any power given them of God, to resist the power from God, and Gods Ordinance. And if this resisting extend not it selfe to defensive wars, how shall the people defend themselves from injuries and the greatest injuries imaginable, from an Armie of Cut-throats and Idolaters in war comming to destroy Religion, set up Idolatry, and root out the name of Gods people, and lay waste the mountaine of the Lords house? And if they may defend themselves by defensive wars, how can wars be without offending? 3. The law of Nature teacheth to repell violence with violence, when one man is oppressed, no lesse then when the Common-wealth is oppressed. Barclay should have given either Scripture, or the law of Nature for his warrant here. 4. Let us suppose a King can be perjured, how are the Estates of the Kingdome, who are his Subjects, by Barclays way, not to challenge such a Tyrant of his perjurie? He did swear, he should be meek and clement, and he is now become a furious Lyon, shall the flock of God be committed to the keeping of a furious Lyon?

D. Ferne, p. 3. sect. 2. pag. 9. addeth, Personall defence is lawfull against sudden and illegall invasion, such as Elisha practiced, even if it

were against the Prince to ward blowes, and to hold the Princes hand, but not to returne blowes,

but generall resistance by Armes, cannot be without many unjust violences, and doth immediatelie strike at the order, which is the life of the Common-wealth.

Answ. If it be naturall to one man to defend himself against the personall invasion of a Prince, then is it naturall and warrantable to ten thousand, and to a whole Kingdome; and what reason to defraud a Kingdome of the benefit of self-defence, more then one man? Neither grace nor policy destroyeth nature: and how shall ten or twenty thousand be defended against Cannons and Musquets that killeth afar off, except they keepe Townes against the King, which D. Ferne and others say had beene treason in David, if he had kept Keilah against King Saul, except they be armed to offend, with weapons of the like nature to kill rather then be killed, as the Law of nature teacheth. 3. To hold the hands of the Prince is no lesse resisting vi[gap]lence, then to cut the lap of his garment, which Royalists think unlawfull, and is an opposing of externall force to the Kings person. 4. It is true, warres meerely defensive cannot be but they must be off[gap]nsive, but they are offensive by accident, and intended for meere defence, and they cannot be without warres sinfully offensive, nor can any warres be in rerum naturâ now, (I except the warres commanded by God, who onely must have beene sinfull in the manner of doing) but some innocent must be killed; but warres cannot for that be condemned. 5. Neither are offensive warres against these who are no powers and no ordinances of God, such as are cut-throate Irish, condemned Prelates and Papists now in Armes, more destructive to the order established by God, then acts of lawfull war are, or the punishing of robbers; and by all this Protestants in Scotland and England, should remaine in their houses unarmed, while the Papists and Irish come on them armed and cut their throats, and spoyle and plunder at will.

Nor can we think that resistance to a King in holding his hands can be naturall, if he be stronger, it is not a naturall meane of selfe-preservation: Nature hath appoynted innocent and offending violence, against unjust violence, as a meanes of selfe-preservation. Goliahs sword is no naturall meanes to hold Sauls hands, for a sword hath no fingers; and if Saul, 1. suddainly, 2. without colour of Law or reason, 3. inevitably should make personall invasion on David to kill him; Dr. Ferne saith he may resist, but resisting is essentially