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. (3) to QUEST. XXXI. Whether or no self-defence against any unjust violence offered to the life, be warranted by Gods Law, and the Law of Nature and Nations? (1)

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. (3)

a reaction of violence; shew us Scripture or reason for violent holding a Kings hands in an unjust personall invasion, without any other reaction of offence: Walter Torrils killed King W. Rufus, as he was shooting at a Deere; the Earle of Suffolk killed Henrie the 8. at Tilting; there is no treasonable intention here, and so no homicide: Defensive wars are offensive, ex eventu & effectu, not ex causa, or ex intentione.

But it may be asked, if no passive subjection at all be commanded as due to Superiours? Rom. 13. Answ. None properly so called, that is, purely passive, onely we are for feare of the sword to doe our duety. 2. We are to suffer ill of punishment of Tyrants, ex hypothesi, that they inflict that ill on us, some other way, and in some other notion then we are to suffer ill of equals, for we are to suffer of equals not for any paternall authority that they have over us, as certainly wee are to suffer ill inflicted by Superiours. I demand of Royalists, if Tyrants inflicting evill of punishment upon Subjects unjustly, be powers ordained of God. 2. If to resist a power in Tyrannicall acts be to resist God. 3. Since wee are not to yi[gap]ld active obedience to all the commandements of Superiours, whether they be good, or ill, by vertue of this place, Rom. 13. how is it that we may not deny passive subjection to all the Acts of violence exercised whether of injustice, whether in these Acts of violence, wherein the Prince in actu ex cito, and formally punisheth not in Gods stead, or in these wherein he punish[gap]th Tyrannically in no formall or actuall subordination to God we owe passive subjection: I desire an answer to these.

Assert. 5. Flying from the tyranny of abused Authority, is a plaine resisting of Rulers in their unlawfull oppression and perverting of judgement.

All Royalists grant it lawfull, and ground it upon the Law of Nature, that those that are persecuted by tyrannous Princes may flee, and it is evident from Christs Commandment, If they persecute you in one City, flee to another, Mat. 10.23. and by Mat. 23.34. Christ fled from the fury of the Jewes, till his houre was come; Elias, Vriah, Ier. 26.20. Ioseph and Mary fled; the Martyres did hide themselves in caves and dens of the earth, Heb. 11.37, 38. Paul was let downe through a window in a basket at Damascus; this certainly is resistance: For looke what legall power God hath given to a tyrannous Ruler, remaining a power ordained of God, to summon

legally, and set before his tribunall the servants of God, that he may kill them and murther them unjustly, that same legall power he hath to murther them: For if it be a legall power to kill the innocent, and such a power as they are obliged in conscience to submit unto, they are obliged in conscience to submit to the legall power of citing; for it is one and the same power: Now if resistance to the one power be unlawfull, resistance to the other must be unlawfull also, and if the law of self-defence, or command of Christ war [gap]ant me to disobey a tyrannous power, commanding me to compei[gap] to receive the sentence of death, that same Law farre more shall warrant me to resist and deny passive subjection, in submitting to the un-unj[gap]st sentence of death. 2. When a murtherer self-convicted sleeth from the just power of a Judge lawfully citing him, he resisteth the just power ordained of God. Rom. 3. Ergo, by the same [gap]eason if we flee from a tyrannous power, we resist that tyrannous power, and so by Royalists ground we resist the ordinance of God by flying. Now to be disobedient to a just power summoning a ma [gap]factor, is to hinder that lawfull power, to be put forth in lawfull Acts, for the Judge cannot purge the land of blood, if the murtherer slee. 3. When the King of Israel sendeth a Captaine, and fifty [gap]ictors to f[gap]tch Elisha, these come instructed with legall power from the King, if I may lay fetters on their power by flight upon the ground of self-preservation, the same warrant shall allow me to oppose harmelesse violence, for my owne safety. 4. Royalists hold it unlawfull to keepe a strong hold against the King, though the Fort be not the Kings house; and though that David should not have offended, if he had kept Keilah against Saul, Dr. Ferne and Royalists say, it had beene unlawfull resistance. What more resistance is made to Royall power by wals interposed, then by Seas and miles of earth interposed? Both are physicall resistance, and violent in their kinde.

QUEST. XXXI. Whether or no self-defence against any unjust violence offered to the life, be warranted by Gods Law, and the Law of Nature and Nations? (1)

SElfe-preservation in all creatures in which is nature, is in the creatures sutable to their nature: The Bull defendeth it selfe by its hornes, the Eagle by her clawes and bill, it will not follow

that a Lambe will defend it selfe against a Wolfe any other way, then by flying. So men, and Christian men doe naturally defend themselves; but the manner of self-defence in a rationall creature, is rationall, and not alwayes meerely naturall: therefore a politique communitie, being a combination of many natures, as neither grace, farre lesse can policy destroy nature, then must these many natures be allowed of God to use a naturall self-defence. If the King bring in an Army of forraigners, then a politique community must defend it selfe in a rationall way; Why? Self-defence is naturall to Man, and [gap]a[gap]urall to a Lamb, but not the same way; A Lamb or a Dove naturally defend themselves against beasts of another kinde, onely by flight, not by re-action and re-offending: But it followeth not that a man defendeth himselfe from his enemy only by flight; If a robber invade me, to take away my life and my purse, I may defend my s[gap]lfe by re-action; for reason and grace both may determine the way of self-preservation: Hence Royalists say, a private man against his Prince, hath no way to defend himselfe, but by flight; Ergo, a community hath no other way to defend thems[gap]lv[gap]s, but by flight. 1. The antecedent is false. Dr. Ferne alloweth to a private man supplications, and denying of Subsidies, and Tribute to the Prince, when he imployeth Tribute to the destruction of the Common-wealth; which by the way, is a cleere resistance, and an active resistance made against the King, Rom. 13.6, 7. and against a Commandement of God, except Royalists grant tyrannous powers may be resisted. 2. The consequence is naught, for a private man may defend himselfe against unjust violence, but not any way he pleaseth; The first way is by supplications and apologies, he may not presently use violence to the Kings servants before he supplicate, nor may he use re-offending, if flight may save. David used all the three in order; 1. He made his defence by words, by the mediation of Ionathan; when that prevailed not, he tooke himselfe to flight, as the next; but because he knew flight was not safe every way, and nature taught him self-preservation, and reason and light of grace taught him the meanes, and the religious order of these meanes for self-preservation. Therefore he addeth a third, He took Goliahs sword, and gathered six hundred armed men, and after that made use of an hoast. Now a sword and armour are not horsing and shipping for flight, but contrary to flight; so re-offending, is Policies last refuge. A godly magistrate taketh not away

the life of a subject, if other means can compasse the end of the Law; and so he is compelled and necessitated to take away the life: so the private man, in his naturall self-defence, not to use re-action, or violent re-offending, in his self-defence against any man, farre lesse against the servants of a King, but in the exigence of the last and most inexorable necessity. And it is true that M. Symmons saith, Sect. 11. pag. 35. Self-defence is not to be used, where it cannot be without sinne. It is certaine, Necessity is but a hungry plea for sinne, Luke 14.18. but it is also true, re-offending comparatively, that I kill rather then I be killed, in the sinlesse Court of Natures spotlesse and harmelesse necessity, is lawfull and necessary, except I be guilty of self-murd[gap]r, in the culpable omission of s[gap]lf-defence. Now a private man may flie, and that is his second necessity, and viol[gap]nt re-offending is the third meane of self-preservation. But with leave, violent re-offending is necessary to a private man, when his second meane, to wit, flight, is not possible, and cannot attaine the end, as in the case of David: if flight doe not prevaile, Goliahs sword and an host of armed men are lawfull: So to a Church and a community of Protestants, men, women, aged, sucking children, sick, and diseased, who are pressed either to be killed, or forsake Religion and Jesus Christ, flight is not the second meane, nor a meane at all because 1. not possible, and therefore not a naturall meane of preservation: For 1. the aged, the sick, the sucking infants, and sound Religion in the posteritie cannot flee, flight here is physically and by natures necessity unpossible, and therefore no lawfull mean. What is to nature physically unpossible, is no lawfull mean. 2. If Christ have a promise that the ends of the earth, Psal. 2.8. and the Isles shall be his possession, Esa. 49.1. I see not how naturall defence can put us to flee, even all Protestants, and their seed, and the weak and sick, whom we are obliged to defend as our selves, both by the Law of nature and grace. I read that seven wicked nations and idolatrous were cast out of their land to give place to the Church of God,to dwell there, but shew me a warrant in natures Law and in Gods word that three Kingdomes of Protestants, their seed, aged, sick, sucking children, should flee out of England, Scotland, Ireland, and leave Religion and the Land to a King and to Papists, Prelates and bloody Irish, and Atheists: and therefore to a Church and community having Gods right and mans law to the land, violent re-offending is their second mean (next to supplications and declarations,

&c.) and flight is not required of them, as of a private man. Yea flight is not necessarily required of a private man, but where it is a possible mean of self-preservation, violent and unjust invasion of a private man, which is unavoidable may be obviated with violent re-offending. Now the unjust invasion made on Scotland in 1640. for refusing the Service-book, or rather the idolatry of the Masse, therein intended, was unavoidable, it was unpossible for the Protestants, their old and sick, their women and sucking children to flee over sea, or to have shipping betwixt the Kings bringing an army on them at Duns-law, and the Prelates charging of the Ministers to receive the masse-book; Althusius saith well, Pol. c. 38. n. 78. Though private men may flee; but the estates if they flee, they do not their duty to commit a country, religion and all to a Lion. L[gap]t not any object, we may not devise a way to fulfill the prophecy, Psal. 2.8, 9. Isa. 49.1. it is true, if the way be our own sinfull way; nor let any object, a Colony went to New-England and fled the persecution. Answer, True, but if fleeing be the onely mean after supplication, there was no more reason that one Colony should go to New-England, then it is necessary & by a divine law obligatory, that the whole Protestants in the three kingdomes according to Royalists Doctrine, are to leave th[gap]ir native country, & religion to one man & to popish Idolators & Atheists willing to worship idols with them, and whethere then shall the Gospel be, which we are obliged to defend with our lives?

2. There is Tutela vitae proxima, & remota. A meer and immediat defence of our life, and a remote or mediat defence; when there is no actuall invasion made by a man seeking our life, we are not to use violent re-offending. David might have killed Saul, when he was sleeping, and when he cut off the lap of his garment, but it was unlawfull for him to kill the Lords Anointed, because he is the Lords Annoited, as it is unlawfull to kill a man, because he is the Image of God, Gen. 9 6. except in case of necessity; The magistrate in case of necessity may kill the malefector, thought his malefices do not put him in that case, that he hath not now the image of God; now prudency and light of grace determineth, When we are to use violent re-offending for self-preservation, it is not left to our pleasure. In a remote posture of self-defence, we are not to use violet re-offending, David having Saul in his hand was in a remote posture of defence, the unjust invasion then was not actuall, not inavoidable,

not a necess[gap]ry mean in human prudence for self-preservation, for King Saul was then in a habituall, not in an actuall pursuit of the whole Princes, Elders and judges of Israel, or of a whole community and Church; Saul did but seek the life of one man, David, and that not for religion, or a nationall pretended offence, and therefore he could not in conscience put hands on the Lords anoynted; but if Saul had actually invaded David for his life, David might in that case make use of Goliahs sword, (for he took not that weapon with him as a Cypher to boast Saul, it is no lesse unlawfull to thr[gap]atten a King then to put hands on him) and rather kill or be killed by Sauls emissaries: Because then he should have been in an immediate and nearest posture of actuall self-defence. Now the case is farre otherwayes between the King, and the two Parliaments of England, and Scotland, for the King is not 1. Sleeping in his emissari[gap]s, for he hath armies in two kingdomes, and now in thre[gap] kingdomes, by sea and land, night and day in actuall pursuit, not of one David, but of the estates, and a Christian community in England and Scotland, and that for Religions, Lawes and Liberties, for the question is now betweene Papist and Protestant, between Arbitr[gap]ry or Tyranicall government, and law-government, and Therefore by both the Lawes of the politique societies of both Kingdomes, and by the Law of God and nature, we are to use violent re-off[gap]nding for s[gap]lf-preservation, and put to this necessity when armies are in actuall pursuit of all the Protestant Churches of the suff[gap]r [gap]awes, and Religion to be undone. But saith the Royalist, Davids argument, God forbid that I stretch out my hand against the Lords Anno[gap]nted, my Master the King, concludeth universally, that the King in his most Tyrannous acts, still remaining the Lords Anoynted, cannot be resisted. Ans. 1. David speaketh of stretching out his ha[gap]d against the person of King Saul: no man in the three Kingdomes, did so much as attempt to do violence to the Kings person. But this argument 2. is inconsequent, for a King invading in his own Royall person, the innocent subject, 1. Suddainly. 2. Without col[gap]ur of Law and reason. 3. Unavoidably, may be personally resist[gap]d, and that with opposing a violence bodily, yet in that invasion he remaineth the Lords Annoynted. 2. By this argument the life of a murtherer cannot be taken away by a Judge, for he r[gap]maineth one endued with Gods image, and keepeth stil the nature

of a man under all the murthers that he doth, but it followeth no wayes, that because God hath indowed his person with a sort of Royalty, of a Divine image, that his life cannot be taken; and certainly, if to be a man endued with Gods image, Gen. 6.9, 10. and to bee an ill doer worthy of evill punishment are different; to be a King, and an ill doer may be distinguished.

The grounds of self-defence are these; A woman or a young man may violently oppose a King, if he force the one to adultery and incest, and the other to Sodomy; Though Court-flatterers should say, the King in regard of his absolutenesse is Lord of life and death; yet no man ever said, that the King is Lord of chastity, faith, and oath that the wife hath made to her husband.

2. Particular nature yeelds to the good of universall nature, for which cause heavie bodies ascend, aerie and light bodies descend; If then a wilde Bull or a goaring Oxe, may not be let loose, in a great market-confluence of people; and if any man turne so distracted, as he smite himselfe with stones and kill all that passe by him, or come at him; in that case the man is to be bound, and his hands fettered, and all whom he invadeth may resist him, were they his owne sons, and may save their owne lives with weapons; much more a King turning a Nero: King Saul vexed with an evill spirit from the Lord, may be resisted; and fa[gap]re more if a King indued with use of reason, shall put violent hands on all his subjects, kill his son and heire; yea, any violently invaded, by natures law, may defend themselves, and the violent restraining of such an one is but the hurting of one man, who cannot be virtually the Common-wealth; but his destroying of the community of men sent out in warres, as his bloody emissaries, to the dissolution of the Common-wealth.

3. The cutting off of a contagious member, that by a Gangrene, would corrupt the whole body, is well warranted by nature, because the safety of the whole is to be preferred to the safety of a part: Nor is it much that Royalists say the King being the head, destroy him, & the whole body the Common-wealth is dissolved; as cut off a mans head, & the life of the whole man is taken away; Because, 1. God cutteth off the spirits of tyrannous Kings, and yet the Common-wealth is not dissolved, no more then when a Leopard or a wilde Boare, running through children is killed, it can be the destruction of all the children in the land. 2. A king indefinitely is referred to the Common-wealth as an adequat head to a Monarchicall Kingdome,

and remove all Kings and the politique body as Monarchicall, in its frame, is not Monarchicall, but it leaveth not off to be a politique body, seeing it hath other Judges, but the naturall body without the head cannot live. 2. This or that tyrannous King, being a transient mortall thing, cannnot be referred to the immortall Common-wealth, as it is adequat correlate. They say, the King never dieth, yet this King can dye; an immortall politique body, such as the Common-wealth, must have an immortall head, and that is a King as a King; not this or that man, possibly a tyrant, who is for the time (and eternall things abstract from time) onely a King.

4. The reason of Fortunius Garcias a skilfull Lawyer in Spaine is consid[gap]rable, Coment. in l. ut vim vi ff. de justit. & jure. God hath impl[gap]nted in every creature naturall inclinations, and motions to preserve it selfe, and we are to love our self for God, and have a love to preserve our selves rather then our neighbour, and Natures law teacheth every man to love God best of all, and next our selves more then our neighbour; for the Law saith, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe; then (saith Malderus com. in 12. q. 26. tom. 2. c. 10. concl. 2.) The love of our selfe, is the measure of the love of our neighbour. But the rule and the measure is more perfect, simple, and more principall then the thing that is measured: It is true, I am to love the salvation of the Church, it comming neerer to Gods glory, more then my owne salvation, as the wishes of Moses and Paul do prove; and I am to love the salvation of my brother, more then my owne temporall life; but I am to love my owne temporall life, more then the life of any other, and therefore I am rather to kill, then to be killed, the exigence of necessity so requiring; Nature without sin aimeth this as a truth, in the case of losse of life; Proximus sum egomet mihi. Ephes. 5.28, 29. He that loveth his wife, loveth himselfe; for no man ever yet hated his owne flesh, but nourisheth it, and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church. As then nature tyeth the dam to defend the young birds, and the Lyon her whelps, and the husband the wife, and that by a comparative re-offending, rather then the wife or children should be killed; yea, hee that is wanting to his brother, (if a robber unjustly invade his brother) and helpeth him not, is a murtherer of his brother so farre, Gods spirituall law requiring both conservation of it in our person, and preservation in others. The forced Damsell was commanded to