QUEST. XXXIIII. Whether Royalists by cogent reasons do prove the unlawfulnesse of defensive warres? (2) to QUEST. XXXIIII. Whether Royalists by cogent reasons do prove the unlawfulnesse of defensive warres? (3)

QUEST. XXXIIII. Whether Royalists by cogent reasons do prove the unlawfulnesse of defensive warres? (2)

the 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 their 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. Cicero, 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 ten. 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

personall 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. Vzz[gap]ah 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 not 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 lawlesse 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 act[gap]; which is still the question.

Object. 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 [gap]eping 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 Angels shall guard them, but on[gap]ly 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, he 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 Ossorie, 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: Children 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

acts 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 gr[gap]at non-cons[gap]quence; 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 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 Iereboam for 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 [gap]ais[gap]d 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 dowwe the Altars of God, and slay his Prophets, so as in the estimation

of 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 whole 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 onely 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 seducing idolatours, when the Idolatrous King refu[gap]ed 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 cut-throats: 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 Pri[gap]ce; 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 injustly invade us and our King, and this example

is 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 Emp[gap]rours 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 the 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 willingly 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 L[gap]gions 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 s[gap]lf-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 expu[gap]ge 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

QUEST. XXXIIII. Whether Royalists by cogent reasons do prove the unlawfulnesse of defensive warres? (3)

Christ suffered under Pontius Pilat, but that Pilat had any legal power to condemne Christ, (but onely 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 onely, 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 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 Lo[gap]d shal render to these 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 non-resisting the King, when they joyne as [gap]avening wolves with the King in these same acts of oppression, even as the Judge cannot formally

impannell 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 onely 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 robber, 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 teeth, 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 non-resistance, 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 or 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

in 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 onely 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.