Lex, Rex

By this example it is unlawful to resist the cutthroats of a King, for Cesar in his own Royal person, the High Priest in person came not out against Christ. Yea it is not lawful for the Parliament to resist a Judas, who hath •led as a traitorous 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 superiors in D. Ferns three cases, in which he alloweth resistance. 1. When the Invasion is sudden. 2. Unavoidable. 3. Without all colour of Law and Reason. In the two last cases,¹ Royalists defend the lawfulness of self-defence. 6. If the example be pressed, Christ did not this and this, he resisted not with violence to save his ⟨p. 316⟩own life, therefore we are to abstain from resistance, and such and such means of self-preservation, then because Christ appealed not from inferior Judges to the Emperor Caesar; who, no doubt, would have shown him more favour, then the Scribes and Pharisees did, and because Christ conveyed not a humble supplication to his Sovereign 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 plead his own just cause, nor did he so plead for himself, and give in word and writ, all lawful and possible defences for his own safety, but answered many things with silence, to the admiration of the Judge, Mark 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 own life, therefore it is unlawful for Scotland and England to appeal to the King, to supplicate, to give in Appol•g••s, &c. I think Royalists dare not say so. But if they say, he would not resist, and yet might have done all these lawfully, because these be lawful means, and resistance with the sword unlawful; because, 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 far subject to higher powers, that he would not resist, and plead from the unlawfulness of resistance; this is petitio principii. 2. He that taketh the sword without Gods warrant, which Peter had not, but the contrary, he was himself a Satan to Christ, who would but counsel him not to die;