QUEST. XXXII. Whether or no the lawfulnesse of defensive warres hath its warrant in Gods word, from the example of David, Elisha, the eighty Priests who resisted Uzziah, &c? (1) to QUEST. XXXII. Whether or no the lawfulnesse of defensive warres hath its warrant in Gods word, from the example of David, Elisha, the eighty Priests who resisted Uzziah, &c? (2)

QUEST. XXXII. Whether or no the lawfulnesse of defensive warres hath its warrant in Gods word, from the example of David, Elisha, the eighty Priests who resisted Uzziah, &c? (1)

DAvid defended himselfe against King Saul, 1. by taking Goliahs sword with him, 2. by being Captaine to six hundred men, yea, it is more then cleare, 1 Chron. 12. that there came to David a hoast like the hoast of God, v. 22. to help against Saul, exceeding foure thousand, v. 36. Now that this hoast came warrantably to help him against Saul, I prove, 1. because it is said, ver. 1. Now these are they that came to David to Ziglag, while he kept himselfe close, because of Saul the son of Kish; and they were amongst the mighty men, helpers of the warre: and then so many mighty Captains are rec[gap]o[gap]ed out, v. 16. There came of the children of Benjamin and Iudah to the hold of David, v. 19. And there fell some of Manasseh to David. 20. As he went to Ziglag there fell to him of Manasseh; Ken[gap]h, and Jozabad, Jediel and Michael, and Jozabad, and Elihu, and Zilthai Captaines of the thousands that were of Manasseh. 21. And they helped David against the band (of the rovers.) 22. At that time day by day there came to David, untill it was a great hoast, like the hoast of God. Now the same expression that is ver. 1. where it is said, they came to help David against Saul, which ver. 1. is repeated, ver. 16. ver. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. 2. That they warrantably came, is evident; because, 1. the Spirit of God commendeth them for their valor and skill in war, ver. 2. ver. 8. ver. 15. ver. 21. which the Spirit of [gap]od doth not in unlawfull wars. 2. Because Amasai, v. 18. The Spirit of the Lord comming on him, saith, Thine are we, David, and on thy side, thou son of Jesse; peace, peace unto thee, and peace to thy helpers, for thy God helpeth thee. The Spirit of God inspireth no man to pray peace, to those who are in an unlawfull warre. 3. That they came to Davids side onely to be sufferers, and to flee with David, and not to pursue and offend, is ridiculous. 1. It is said, ver. 1. They came to David to Ziglag, while he kept himselfe close, because of Saul the son of Kish. And they were amongst the mighty men, helpers of the warre. It is a scorne to say, that their might, and their helping in warre, consisted in being meere patients with David, and such as fled from Saul: for they had beene on Sauls side before; and to come with armour to flee, is a mocking of the word of God. 2. It

is cleare, the scope of the Spirit of God is to shew how God helped his innocent servant David against his persecuting Prince and Master King Saul, in moving so many mighty men of warre to come in such multitudes, all in Armes, to help him in warre. Now to what end would the Lord commend them, as fit for Warre, men of might, fit to handle shield & buckler, whose faces are as the faces of Lyons, as swift as the Roes on the Mountaines, ver. 8. and commend them as helpers of David, if it were unlawfull for David, and all those mighty men, to carry Armes to pursue Saul and his followers, and to doe nothing with their armour but flee? Judge if the Spirit of God in reason could say, All these men came armed with bowes, ver. 2. and could handle both the right hand and the left in slinging stones, and shooting of arrowes, and that ver. 22. all these came to David, being mighty men of valour, and they came as Captains over hundreds and thousands, & they put to slight all them of the valleyes, both toward the East, and toward the West, ver. 14, 15. and that David received them, and made them Captains of the band, if they did not come in a posture of warre, and for hostile invasion, if need were? For if they came on[gap]ly to suffer and to flee, not to pursue, Bowes, Captaines, and Captaines of Bands made by David and Davids helpers in the warre, came not to help David by [gap]lying, that was a hurt to David, not a help. It is true, M. Symmons saith, 1 Sam. 22.2. Those that came out to David, strengthened him,

but he strengthened not them; and David might easily have revenged himselfe on the Ziphites, who did good will to betray him to the hands of Saul, if his conscience had served him.

Answ. 1. This would inferre that these armed men came to help David against his conscience, and that David was a patient in the businesse, the contrary is in the Text, 1 Sam. 26.2. David became a Captaine over them: and 1 Chron. 12.17. If ye come peaceably to help me, my heart shall be knit to you. ver. 18. Then David received them, and made them Captains of the band. 2. David might have revenged himselfe upon the Ziphites: True, but that Conscience hindred him, cannot be proved. To pursue an enemie is an act of a Councell of Warre; and he saw it would create more enemies, not help his Cause. 3. To David to kill Saul sleeping, and the people who out of a mis-informed conscienc[gap] came out, many of them to help their lawfull Prince against a Traitor (as was supposed) seeking to kill their King, and to usurp the throne, had not been wisdome

nor justice, because to kill the enemie in a just self-defence, must be, when the enemie actually doth invade, and the life of the defendant cannot be otherwise saved. A sleeping enemie is not in the act of unjust pursuit of the innocent; but if an Armie of Papists, Philistims were in the fields sleeping, pursuing not one single David onely for a supposed personall wrong to the King, but lying in the fields and campe against the whole Kingdome and Religion, & labouring to introduce arbitrary Government, Popery, Idolatry, and to destroy Lawes and Liberties, and Parliaments, then David were obliged to kill these murtherers in their sleep.

If any say, The case is all one in a naturall self-defence, what ever be the cause, and who ever be the enemy, because the self-defender is not to offend▪ except the unjust Invader be in actuall pursuit, now Armies in their sleep are not in actuall pursuit.

Answ. Wh[gap]n one man with a multitude invadeth one man, that one man may pursue, as he seeth most conducible for self-defence. Now the Law saith, Threatnings and terror of Armour maketh imminent danger, and the case of pursuit in self-defence lawfull; i[gap] therefore an Armie of Irish Rebels and Spanyards were sleeping in their Camp, and our King in a deep sleep in the midst of them, and these R[gap]b[gap]ls actually in the Camp besieging the Parliament, and the Citie of London, most unjustly to take away Parliament, Laws, and Liberties of Religion, it should follow that Generall Essex ought not to kill the Kings Majesty in his sleep, for he is the Lords Anointed, but 1. will it follow that Generall Essex may not kill the Irish Rebels sleeping about the King? and that he may not rescue the Kings Person out of the hands of the Papists and Rebels, ensnaring the King, and leading him on to Popery, and to employ his Authority to defend Popery, and trample upon Protestant Parliaments, and Lawes? Certainly from this example this cannot be concluded. For Armies in actuall pursuit of a whole Parliament, Kingdome, Lawes, and Religion, (though sleeping in the Camp) because in actuall pursuit, may be invaded, and killed, though sleeping. And David useth no argument from conscience, why hee might not kill Sauls Armie, (I conceive he had not Armes to doe that) and should have created more enemies to himselfe, and hazard his owne life, and the life of all his men, if he had of purpose killed so many sleeping men; yea the inexpedience of that, for a private wrong to kill Gods mis-led people, should have made all Israel enemies

to David. But David useth an Argument from Conscience onely, to prove it was not lawfull for him to stretch forth his hand against the King; and for my part, so long as he remaineth King, and is not dethroned by those who made him King at Hebron, to put hands on his person, I judge utterly unlawfull: one man sleeping cannot be in actuall pursuit of another man; so that the self-defender may lawfully kill him in his sleep; but the case is farre otherwise in lawfull wars, the Israelites might lawfully kill the Philistims encamping about Jerusalem to destroy it, and Religion, and the Church of God, though they were all sleeping; even though we suppose King Saul had brought them in by his Authority, & though he were sleeping in the midst of the uncircumcised Armies; and it is evident, that an hoast of armed enemies, though sleeping, by the law of self-defence may be killed, lest they awake and kill us; whereas one single man, and that a King, cannot be killed. 2. I think certainly, David had not done unwisely, but hazarded his owne life, and all his mens, if he, and Ahimelech, and Ab[gap]shai should have killed an host of their enemies sleeping, that had been a work, as impossible to three, so hazard some to all his men.

D. Ferne, as Arnisaeus did before him, saith, The example of David was extraordinary, because he was anointed and designed by God as successor to Saul, and so he must use an extraordinary way of guarding himselfe. Arnisaeus citeth Alberic. Gentilis, that David was now exempted from amongst the number of Subjects.

Answ. There were not two Kings in Israel now, both David and Saul. 2. David acknowledgeth his subjection in naming Saul the Lords Anointed, & his Master, Lord & King; and therefore David was yet a subject. 3. If David would have proved his title to the Crowne by extraordinary wayes, he who killed Goliah extraordinarily, might have killed Saul by a miracle; but David goeth a most ordinary way to work, for self-defence, and his comming to the Kingdom was through persecution, want, eating shew-bread in case of necessity, defending himself with Goliahs sword. 4. How was any thing extraordinary, and above a Law, seeing David might have killed his enemie Saul, and according to Gods Law he spared him? and hee argueth from a morall duty, he is the Lords annoynted, therefore I will not kill him? was this extraoardinary above a law? then according to Gods law he might

have killed him. Royalists cannot say so, what ground to say one of Davids acts in his deportment toward Saul was extraordinary, and not all? was it extraordinary that David fled? no: or that David consulted the oracle of God, what to do when Saul was coming against him? 5. in an ordinary fact something [gap]ay be extraordinary, as the dead sleep from the Lord upon Saul, and his men. 1. Sam. 26. and yet the fact according to its substance ordinary. 6. Nor is this extraordinary, that a distressed man, being an excellent warriour as David was, may use the help of six hundred men, who by the law of charity are to help to deliver the innocent from death; yea, all Israel were obliged to defend him, who killed Goliah. 7. Royalists make Davids act of not putting hands on the Lords annointed an ordinary morall reason against resistance, but his putting on of armour, they will have extraordinary, and this [gap] (I confesse) a short way to an adversary to cull out something t[gap]at is for his cause, and make it ordinary, and something that is against his cause, must be extraordinary. 8. These men by the law of nature were obliged to joyne in armes with David, ergo the non-helping of an oppressed man, must be Gods ordinary law: a blasphemous tenet. 9. If David by an extraordinary spirit killed [gap]ot King Saul, then the Jesuits way of killing must be Gods ordinary Law.

2. David certainly intended to keep Keilah against King Saul, for the Lord would not have answered David in an unlawfull fact, for that were all one, as if God should teach David how to play the Traitor to his King; for if God had answ[gap]red, They will not deliver thee up, but they shall save thee from the hand of Saul, As David beleeved he might say this, as well as its contradicent, then David behoved to keep the city, for certainly Davids question pre-supposeth he was to keep the city.

The example of Elisha the Prophet is considerable, 2 Kings 6.32. But Elisha sate in his house, and the Elders with him: And the King sent a man before him; but [gap]re the messengers came to him, he said to the Elders, See now the sonn[gap] of a murtherer, hath sent to take away mine head. Here is unjust violence offered by King Ioram to an innocent man. Elisha keepeth the house violently against the Kings Messenger, as we did keep Castles against King Charles his unlawfull messengers. Look (saith he) when the messenger commeth, shut the doore. 2. There is violence also commanded, and resistence

to be made, Hold him fast at the doore. In the Hebrew it is, [gap] Arias Montan. Claudite ostium, & opprimetis eum in ostio: Violently presse him at the doore: And so the Chaldee Paraphrase, Ierom. Ne sinatis eum introir[gap]. The LXX. Interpreters, [gap], illidite eum in ostio, Presse him betwixt the doore and the wall. It is a word of bodily violence, according to Vatablus, Yea Theodoret will have King Ioram himselfe holden at the doore. And 3. It is no Answer that D. Ferne and other Royalists give, that Elisha made no personall resistance to the King himselfe, but onely to the Kings cut-throat, sent to take away his head. Yea they say, It is lawfull to resist the Kings cut-throats. But the text is cleere, that the violent resistance is made to the King himselfe also, for he addeth, Is not the sound of his Masters feet behinde him? And by this answer, it is lawfull to keep Townes with iron gates and barres, and violently to oppose the Kings cut-throats, comming to take away the heads of the Parliaments of both Kingdomes, and of Protestants in the three Kingdomes.

Some Royalists are so impudent, as to say that there was no violence here, and that Elisha was an extraordinary man, and that it is not lawfull for us to call a King the son of a murtherer, as the Prophet Elisha did: but Ferne sect. 2. pag. 9. forge[gap]ting himselfe, saith from hence, It is lawfull to resist the Prince himselfe, thus farre, as toward his blowes, and hold his hands: But let Ferne answer, if the violent binding of the Princes hands, that he shall not be able to kill, be a greater violence done to his Royall person, then Davids cutting off the lap of Sauls garment; for certainly, the Royall body of a Prince is of more worth then his cloathes. Now it was a sinne, I judge, that smote Davids conscience, that he being a subject, and not in the act of naturall self-defence, did cut the garment of the Lords Annointed. Let Ferne see then how he will save his owne principles, for certainly hee yeeldeth the cause for me; I judge that the person of the King, or any Judge, who is the Lords Deputy, as is the King, is sacred, and that remaining in that honourable case, no subject can without guiltinesse before God, put hands in his person, the case of naturall self-defence being excepted: for because the Royall dignity doth not advance a King above the common condition of men, and the Throne maketh him not leave off to bee a man, and a man that can do wrong; and therefore as one that doth manifest violence to the life of a man, though his subject, he may

QUEST. XXXII. Whether or no the lawfulnesse of defensive warres hath its warrant in Gods word, from the example of David, Elisha, the eighty Priests who resisted Uzziah, &c? (2)

be resisted with [gap]od[gap]ly [gap] in the case of u[gap]j[gap]st and violent invasion. It is a vaine thing to say, Who shall be judge betweene the King and his subj[gap]cts? The [gap]ubject cannot judge the King, because none can be judge in his owne cause, and an inferiour or equall cannot judge a superiour or equall. But I answer, 1. This is the Kings owne cause also, and he doth unjust violence as a man, and not as a King, and so he cannot be judge more then the subject. 2. Every one that doth unjust violence as he is such, is inferiour to the innocent, and so ought to be judged by some. 3. There is no need of the formality of a judge in things evident to natures eye, such as are manifestly unjust violences: Nature in acts naturall of self-defence, is judge, party, accuser, witnesse, and all; for it is supposed the Judge is absent, when the Judge doth wrong. And for the plea of Elisha's extraordinary spirit; it is no thing extraordinary to the Prophet to call the King the sonne of a murtherer, when hee complaineth to the Elders for justice of his oppression, no more then it is for a plaintiffe to libell a true crime against a wicked person; and if Elisha's resistance came from an extraordinary spirit, then it is not naturall for an oppressed man to close the doore upon a murtherer, then the taking away of the innocent Prophets head must be extraordinary, for this was but an ordinary and most naturall remedy against this oppression; and though to name the King the sonne of a murtherer, be extraordinary, (and I should grant it without any hurt to this cause) it followeth no wayes that the self-defence was extraordinary. 3. 2. Chron. 26.17. Foure score of Priests, with Azariah are commended as valiant men. LXX. [gap]. Heb. [gap] Arias Montan. filii virtutis, Men of courage and valour, for that they resisted Vzziah the King, who would take on him to burne Incense to the Lord, against the Law. M. Symmons pag. 34. sect. 10. They withstood him not with swords and weapons, but onely by speaking, and one but spake. I answer; It was a bodily resistance: for beside that, Ierome turneth it, Viri fortissimi, Most valiant men; And it is a speech in the Scripture, taken for men valorous for warre; As 1 Sam. 14.25. 2 Sam. 17.10. 1 Chron. 5.18. And so doth the phrase [gap] Potent in valour. And the phrase, [gap] 2 Sam. 24.9. 2 Sam. 11.16. 1 Sam. 31.12. and therefore all the 80. not onely by words, but violently expelled the King out of the Temple. 2. [gap] Arias Mont. & [gap]eterunt

contra a Huzzi-Iahu. the LXX. say, [gap]. They resisted the King, so Dan. 11.17. The armies of the south shall not stand. Dan. 8 25. It is a word of violence. 3. The text saith ver. 20. and, they thrust him out. [gap] Ar. Mont. & fecerunt eum festinare. Hy[gap]rony. festinatò expulerunt eum. The LXX. say, The Priest [gap], so Vatablus, they cast him out. And 4. it is said ver. 21. he was cut off from the house of the Lord. Doctor Ferne saith sect. 4. pag. 50. They are valiant men who dare withstand a King in an evil way, by a home reproofe, and by withdrawing the holy things from him, especially since by the law the leper was to be put out of the congregation.

Ans. 1. He contradicteth the text, it was not a resistance by words, for the text saith they withstood him, and they thrust him out violently. 2. He yeeldeth the cause, for to withdraw the holy things of God, by corporall violence, and violently to pull the censer out of his hand, that he should not provoke Gods wrath, by offering incense to the Lord is resistance, and the like violence may, by this example, be used, when the King useth the sword and the Militia to bring in an enemy to destroy the kingdom: it is no lesse in justice against the second table, that the King useth the sword to destroy the innocent, then to usurpe the censor against the first table. But Doctor Ferne yeeldeth that the censor may be pulled out of his hand, lest he provoke God to wrath. Ergo, by the same very reason, à fortiore, the Sword, the Castles, the Sea-ports, the Militia may be violently pulled out of his hand, for if there was an expresse Law that the leper should be put out of the congregation, and therefore the King also should be subject to his Church-censor, then he subjecteth the King to a punishment to be inflicted by the subjects, upon the King, Ergo the King is obnoxious to the coactive power of the law. 2. Ergo, subjects may judge him and punish him. 3. Ergo he is to be subject to all Church-censors, no lesse then the people. 4. There is an expresse law that the leper should be put out of the congregation. What then? flattering court Divines say the King is above all these lawes, for there is an expresse law of God as expresse as that ceremoniall on touching lepers, and a more binding law, that the murtherer should die the death. Will Royalists put no exception upon a ceremoniall law of expelling the leper, and yet put an exception upon a Divine morall law, concerning the punishing of murtherers given before the law on Mount Sinai. Gen. 6.9. They so declare that they accept the persons of men. 5. If

a leper King could not actually sit upon the throne, but must be cut off from the house of the Lord, because of an expresse law of God, these being inconsistent, that a King remaining amongst Gods people, ruling and raigning, should keep company with the Church of God, and yet be a leper who was to be cut off, by a Divine law from the Church, now I perswade my self that far lesse can he actually raigne in the full use of the power of the sword, if he use the sword to cut off thousands of innocent people, because murthering the innocent and fatherles, and Royall governing in Righteousnesse and Godlinesse are more inconsistent, by Gods law, being morally opposite, then remaining a governour of the people, and the disease of leprosie, are incompatible. 6. I think not much that Barcley saith cont. Monar. l. 5. c. 11. Vzziah remained King, after he was removed from the congregation for leprosie. 1. Because that toucheth the question of dethroning Kings, this is an argument brought for violent resisting of Kings, and that the people did resume all power from Vzziah, and put it in the hand of Iotham his son, who was over the Kings house, judging the people of the land. ver. 21. And by this same reason the Parliaments of both Kingdomes may resume the power once given to the King, when he hath proved more unfit to governe morally, then Vzziah was ceremonially, that he ought not to judge the people of the land in this case. 2. If the pri[gap]sts did execute a ceremoniall law upon King Vzziah, Far more may the three estates of Scotland, and the two houses of Parliament of England execute the morall law of God on their King.

If the people may covenant by oath to rescue the innocent and unjustly condemned, from the sentence of death notoriously known to be tyranous and cruel, then may the people resist the King in his unlawfull practises. But this the people did in the matter of Ionathan. M. Symmons saith pag. 32. and Doctor Ferne §. 9.49. That with no violence, but by prayers and teares the people saved Jonathan, as Peter was rescued out of prison by the prayers of the Church, King Saul might easily be intreated to break a rash vow to save the life of his eldest son. Ans. 1. I say not the common people did it, but the people including proceres regni, the Princes of the land, and captaines of thousands. 2. The text hath not one word or syllable of either prayers, supplications or teares, but by the contrary. They bound themselves by an oath, contrary to the oath of Saul. 1 Sam. 14.44. and swear. ver. 45. God forbid, as the Lord liveth,

there shal not one hair of his head fall to the ground, so the people rescued Ionathan. The Church prayed not to God for Peters deliverance with an oath, that they must have Peter saved whether God will or no.

2. Though we read of no violence used by the people, yet an oath upon so reasonable a ground. 1. without the Kings consent. 2. contrary to a standing law, that they had agreed unto, ver. 24. 3. contradictory to the Kings sentence and unjust oath. 4. spoken to the King in his face, all these prove that the people meaned, and that the oath ex conditione operis, tended to a violent resisting of the King in a manifestly unjust sentence. Chrysostom. hom. 14. ad Pop. Antioch. accuseth Saul as a murtherer in this sentence, and praiseth the people. So Iunius, Peter Martyr, (whom Royalists impudently cite) so Cor. à lap. Zanch. Lyra, and Hug. Cardinalis say it was Tyranny in Saul, and laudable that the people resisted Saul, and the same is asserted by Iosephus l. 6. antiquit. c. 7. so Althus. Polyt. c. 38. n. 109.

We see also 2 Chron. 21.10. That Libnah revolted from under Iehoram, because he had forsaken the Lord God of his fathers. It hath no ground in the text that Royalists say, that the defection of Lybnah is not justified in th[gap] [gap]ex[gap], but the cause is from the demerit of wicked Iehoram, because he made defection from God, Libnah made defection from him, as the ten tribes revolted from Rehoboam for Solomons idolatry, which before the Lord procured this defection, yet the ten tribes make defection for oppression. I answer, where the literall meaning is simple and obvious, we are not to go from it. The text sheweth what cause moved Libnah to revolt, it was a town of the Levites, and we know they were longer sound in the truth then the ten tribes, 2. Chron. 13.8 9, 10. Hos. 11.12. Lavater saith Iehoram hath pressed them to idolatry, and therefore they revolted. Zanch. Cor. à Lap. saith, this was the cause that moved them to revolt, and it is cleare ver. 13. he caused Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to go a whoring from God, and no doubt tempted Libnah to the like.

Yea the city of Abel 2 Sam. 20. did well to resist Ioab, Davids Generall, for he came to destroy a whole city for a traitors sake, for Sheba, they resisted and defended themselves, the wise woman calleth the city a mother in Israel, and the inheritance of the Lord. ver. 19. and Ioab professeth ver. 20. far be it from him to swallow up

and destroy Abel. The woman saith ver. 18. They said of old, they shall surely ask counsell at Abel, and so they ended the matter, that is, the city of Abel was a place of Prophets and Oracles of old where they asked responses of their doubts, and therefore peace should be first offered to the City before Ioab should destroy it; as the law saith, Deut. 20.10. from all which it is evident, that the city, in defending it self did nothing against peace, so they should deliver Sheba the traitour to Ioabs hand, which accordingly they did: and Ioab pursued them not as traitors for keeping the city against the King, but professeth in that they did no wrong.