Lex, Rex. › Question 32: QUEST. XXXII. Whether or no the lawfulness of defensive wars hath its warrant in God…, Lex, Rex by Samuel Rutherford (1644) | AskReformation

Skip to content

:902p. 343–344

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 Crown by extraordinary ways, he who killed Goliath extraordinarily, might have killed Saul by a miracle; but David goeth a most ordinary way to work, for self-defence, and his coming to the Kingdom was through persecution, want, eating show-bread in case of necessity, defending himself with Goliaths sword. 4. How was any thing extraordinary, and above a Law, seeing David might have killed his enemy Saul, and according to Gods Law he spared him? and he argueth from a moral duty, he is the Lords anointed, therefore I will not kill him? was this extraordinary above a law? then according to Gods law he might ⟨p. 344⟩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 •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 warrior 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 Goliath. 7. Royalists make Davids act of not putting hands on the Lords anointed an ordinary moral reason against resistance, but his putting on of armour, they will have extraordinary, and this […] (I confess) a short way to an adversary to cull out something t•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 join in arms 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 •ot King Saul, then the Jesuits way of killing must be Gods ordinary Law.

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 ⟨p. 344⟩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 •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 〈…〉 (I confesse) a short way to an adversary to cull out something t•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 •ot King Saul, then the Jesuits way of killing must be Gods ordinary Law.

:904p. 344–345

¹The 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 •re the messengers came to him, he said to the Elders, See now the sonn• of a murderer, hath sent to take away mine head. Here is unjust violence offered by King Joram to an innocent man. Elisha keepeth the house violently against the Kings Messenger, as we did keep Castles against King Charles his unlawful messengers. Look (saith he) when the messenger cometh, shut the door. 2. There is violence also commanded, and resistance ⟨p. 345⟩to be made, Hold him fast at the door. In the Hebrew it is, [Greek or Hebrew] Arias Montan. Claudite ostium, & opprimetis eum in ostio: Violently press him at the door: And so the Chaldee Paraphrase, Jerome. Ne sinatis eum introir•. The LXX. Interpreters, [Greek or Hebrew], illidite eum in ostio, Press him betwixt the door and the wall. It is a word of bodily violence, according to Vatablus, Yea Theodoret will have King Joram himself holden at the door. And 3. It is no Answer that D. Ferne and other Royalists give, that Elisha made no personal resistance to the King himself, but only to the Kings cut-throat, sent to take away his head. Yea they say, It is lawful to resist the Kings cut-throats. But the text is clear, that the violent resistance is made to the King himself also, for he addeth, Is not the sound of his Masters feet behind him? And by this answer, it is lawful to keep Townes with iron gates and bars, and violently to oppose the Kings cut-throats, coming to take away the heads of the Parliaments of both Kingdoms, and of Protestants in the three Kingdoms.

¹The 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 •re the messengers came to him, he said to the Elders, See now the sonn• 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 ⟨p. 345⟩to be made, Hold him fast at the doore. In the Hebrew it is, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 Arias Montan. Claudite ostium, & opprimetis eum in ostio: Violently presse him at the doore: And so the Chaldee Paraphrase, Ierom. Ne sinatis eum introir•. The LXX. Interpreters, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, 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.

1Elisha's fact proveth the lawfulness of defensive wars.Elisha's fact proveth the lawful•esse of defensive wars.

:905p. 345–346

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 lawful for us to call a King the son of a murderer, as the Prophet Elisha did: but Ferne sect. 2. pag. 9. forgetting himself, saith from hence, It is lawful to resist the Prince himself, thus far, as toward his blows, 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 Royal person, then Davids cutting off the lap of Sauls garment; for certainly, the Royal body of a Prince is of more worth then his clothes. Now it was a sin, I judge, that smote Davids conscience, that he being a subject, and not in the act of natural self-defence, did cut the garment of the Lords Anointed. Let Ferne see then how he will save his own principles, for certainly he yieldeth 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 guiltiness before God, put hands in his person, the case of natural self-defence being excepted: for because the Royal dignity doth not advance a King above the common condition of men, and the Throne maketh him not leave off to be 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 ⟨p. 346⟩be resisted with •od•ly […] in the case of u•j•st and violent invasion. It is a vain thing to say, Who shall be judge between the King and his subjects? The subject cannot judge the King, because none can be judge in his own cause, and an inferior or equal cannot judge a superior or equal. But I answer, 1. This is the Kings own 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 inferior 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 natural of self-defence, is judge, party, accuser, witness, and all; for it is supposed the Judge is absent, when the Judge doth wrong. And for the plea of Elisha's extraordinary spirit;¹

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•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 ⟨p. 346⟩be resisted with •od•ly 〈…〉 in the case of u•j•st and violent invasion. It is a vaine thing to say, Who shall be judge betweene the King and his subj•cts? The •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;¹

1[…] by no extraordinary spirit resisted Jo•am.〈…〉 by no ex••aordinary spirit resisted Jo•am.

:906p. 346–347

it is no thing extraordinary to the Prophet to call the King the son of a murderer, when he complaineth to the Elders for justice of his oppression, no more then it is for a plaintiff to libel a true crime against a wicked person; and if Elisha's resistance came from an extraordinary spirit, then it is not natural for an oppressed man to close the door upon a murderer, then the taking away of the innocent Prophets head must be extraordinary, for this was but an ordinary and most natural remedy against this oppression; and though to name the King the son of a murderer, be extraordinary, (and I should grant it without any hurt to this cause) it followeth no ways that the self-defence was extraordinary. 3. 2. Chron. 26.17. Four score of Priests, with Azariah are commended as valiant men. LXX. [Greek or Hebrew]. Heb. [Greek or Hebrew] Arias Montan. filii virtutis, Men of courage and valour, for that they resisted Uzziah the King, who would take on him to burn Incense to the Lord,¹ against the Law. M. Symmons pag. 34. sect. 10. They withstood him not with swords and weapons, but only by speaking, and one but spake. I answer; It was a bodily resistance: for beside that, Jerome turneth it,² Viri fortissimi, Most valiant men; And it is a speech in the Scripture, taken for men valorous for war; As 1 Sam. 14.25. 2 Sam. 17.10. 1 Chron. 5.18. And so doth the phrase [Greek or Hebrew] Potent in valour. And the phrase, [Greek or Hebrew] 2 Sam. 24.9. 2 Sam. 11.16. 1 Sam. 31.12. and therefore all the 80. not only by words, but violently expelled the King out of the Temple. 2. [Greek or Hebrew] Arias Mont. & •••eterunt ⟨p. 347⟩contra a Huzzi-Jahu. the LXX. say, [Greek or Hebrew]. They resisted the King, so Dan. 11.17. The armies of the south shall not stand. Dan. 8 25.³ It is a word of violence. 3. The text saith ver. 20. and, they thrust him out. [Greek or Hebrew] Ar. Mont. & fecerunt eum festinare. Hy•rony. festinatò expulerunt eum. The LXX. say, The Priest [Greek or Hebrew], 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 reproof, and by withdrawing the holy things from him, especially since by the law the leper was to be put out of the congregation.

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. 〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Heb. 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 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,¹ 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,² 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 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 Potent in valour. And the phrase, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 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. 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 Arias Mont. & eterunt

1Loyal subjects belief.Loyall subjects beliefe.
2Resistance made to King Uzziah proveth the same.Resist•nce made to King Vzziah proveth the same.
3Vat•b. Deturba•unt eum ex illo l••o, compulsusque ut egrede•etur. in not. Festinanter egredi eum coegerunt, hoc est, extruserunt eum.

:907p. 347

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 yieldeth the cause, for to withdraw the holy things of God, by corporal 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 less in justice against the second table, that the King useth the sword to destroy the innocent, then to usurp the censor against the first table. But Doctor Ferne yieldeth 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 express 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 less then the people. 4. There is an express law that the leper should be put out of the congregation. What then? flattering court Divines say the King is above all these laws, for there is an express law of God as express as that ceremonial on touching lepers, and a more binding law, that the murderer should die the death. Will Royalists put no exception upon a ceremonial law of expelling the leper, and yet put an exception upon a Divine moral law, concerning the punishing of murderers given before the law on Mount Sinai. Gen. 6.9. They so declare that they accept the persons of men. 5.

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.

:908p. 347–348

If ⟨p. 348⟩a leper King could not actually sit upon the throne, but must be cut off from the house of the Lord, because of an express law of God, these being inconsistent, that a King remaining amongst Gods people, ruling and reigning, 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 persuade my self that far less can he actually reign in the full use of the power of the sword, if he use the sword to cut off thousands of innocent people, because murdering the innocent and fatherless, and Royal governing in Righteousness and Godliness are more inconsistent, by Gods law, being morally opposite, then remaining a governor of the people, and the disease of leprosy, are incompatible. 6. I think not much that Barcley saith cont. Monar. l. 5. c. 11. Uzziah remained King, after he was removed from the congregation for leprosy. 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 Uzziah, and put it in the hand of Jotham 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 Kingdoms may resume the power once given to the King, when he hath proved more unfit to govern morally, then Uzziah was ceremonially, that he ought not to judge the people of the land in this case. 2. If the priests did execute a ceremonial law upon King Uzziah, Far more may the three estates of Scotland, ¹and the two houses of Parliament of England execute the moral law of God on their King.

If ⟨p. 348⟩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•sts did execute a ceremoniall law upon King Vzziah, Far more may the three estates of Scotland, ¹and the two houses of Parliament of England execute the morall law of God on their King.

11 Sam. 14. The peoples resisting of Saul in rescuing Jonathan unjustly condemned to die, saith, that th• Estates of the two Kingdoms may swear and covenant to rescue thousands of innocents from the unjust sword of ••• throats of I•eland, & Papists in England.1 Sam. 14. The peoples resisting of Saul in rescuing •onathan unjustly condemned to die, saith, that th• Esta•es of the two Kingdomes may swear and covenant to rescue thousands of innocents from the unjust sword of ••• throats of I•eland, & Papists in England.

:909p. 348–349

If the people may covenant by oath to rescue the innocent and unjustly condemned, from the sentence of death notoriously known to be tyrannous and cruel, then may the people resist the King in his unlawful practises. But this the people did in the matter of Jonathan. M. Symmons saith pag. 32. and Doctor Ferne §. 9.49. That with no violence, but by prayers and tears the people saved Jonathan, as Peter was rescued out of prison by the prayers of the Church, King Saul might easily be entreated 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 captains of thousands. 2. The text hath not one word or syllable of either prayers, supplications or tears, 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, ⟨p. 349⟩there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground, so the people rescued Jonathan. ¹The Church prayed not to God for Peters deliverance with an oath, that they must have Peter saved whether God will or no.

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, ⟨p. 349⟩there shal not one hair of his head fall to the ground, so the people rescued Ionathan. ¹The Church prayed not to God for Peters deliverance with an oath, that they must have Peter saved whether God will or no.

1Chald. Par. Manifestum est quod Jonathan peccavit perignorantiam. P. Ma•t. saith with a doubt, Si• ista seditiose fecerunt—nullo modo excusari possunt. Yea he saith, they might suss•agiis, with their suffrages free him. Jun. The people opposed a just oath to Sauls hypocritical oath. Osiander and Borhaius justify the people. P. Mar. Come. in 2 Reg. c. 8. saith, Lib•ah revolt•d, Quia subditos nit•batur cogere ad Idololatriam, quod ipsi libnenses pati noluerunt & merito: principibus •nim parendum est, verum usque ad aras ▪ The King would compel them to Idolatry, and they justly revolted. Vatab. in no•. Impulit Judaeos ad Idololatriam, alioqui •am pronos ad cultum Idololorum.Chald. Par. Manifestum est quod Jonathan peccavit perignorantiam. P. Ma•t. saith with a doubt, Si• ista seditiose fecerunt—nullo modo excusari possunt. Yea he saith, they might suss•agiis, with their suffrages free him. Jun. The people opposed a just oath to Sauls hypocriticall oath. Osiander and Borhaius justifie the people. P. Mar. Com. in 2 Reg. c. 8. saith, Lib•ah revolt•d, Quia subditos nit•batur cogere ad Idololatriam, quod ipsi libnenses pati noluerunt & merito: principibus •nim parendum est, verum usque ad aras ▪ The King would compell them to Idolatry, and they justly revolted. Vatab. in no•. Impulit Judaeos ad Idololatriam, alioqui •am pronos ad cultum Idololorum.

:911p. 349

We see also 2 Chron. 21.10. That Libnah revolted from under Jehoram, 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• •ex•, but the cause is from the demerit of wicked Jehoram, 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 literal meaning is simple and obvious, we are not to go from it. The text showeth 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 Jehoram 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 clear ver. 13. he caused Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to go a whoring from God, and no doubt tempted Libnah to the like.

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• •ex•, 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.

:912p. 349–350

Yea the city of Abel 2 Sam. 20. did well to resist Joab, Davids General, 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 Joab professeth ver. 20. far be it from him to swallow up ⟨p. 350⟩and destroy Abel. The woman saith ver. 18. They said of old, they shall surely ask counsel at Abel,¹ 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 Joab 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 traitor to Joabs hand, which accordingly they did: and Joab pursued them not as traitors for keeping the city against the King, but professeth in that they did no wrong.

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 ⟨p. 350⟩and destroy Abel. The woman saith ver. 18. They said of old, they shall surely ask counsell at Abel,¹ 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.

1The City of Abels revolting, a proof for the lawfulness of resistance.The Citie of Abels revolting, a proof for the lawfulnesse of resistance.

:915p. 350–351¶1

1. Assert. In a free Monarchy (such as Scotland is known to be) by the higher power Rom. 13. is the King principally in respect of dignity understood;¹ but not solely and only, as if inferior Judges were not higher powers. 1. I say in a free Monarchy: For no man can say, that where there is not a King, but only Aristocracy, and government by States, as in Holland, that there the people are obliged to obey the King; and yet this Text, I hope, can reach the consciences of all Holland, that there every soul• must be subject to the higher powers, and yet not a subject in Holland is to be subject to any King: for non entis nulla sunt accidentia. 2. I said the King in a free Monarchy is here principally understood in regard of dignity, but not in regard of the essence of a magistrate, because the essence ⟨p. 351⟩of a Magistrate doth equally belong to all inferior Magistrates, as to the King, as is already proved,² (let the Prelate answer if he can) for though some Judges be sent by the King, and have from him authority to judge, yet this doth no more prove that inferior Judges are unproperly Judges, and only such by analogy, & not essentially; Then it will prove a Citizen is not essentially a Citizen, nor a Church-officer essentially a Church-officer, nor a son not essentially a living creature, because the former have authority from the Incorporation of Citizens, and of Church-officers, and the latter hath his life by generation from his father, as Gods instrument. For though the Citizen and the Church-officers may be judged by their several Incorporations that made them, yet are they also essentially Citizens and Church-officers, as those who made them such.

1. Assert. In a free Monarchie (such as Scotland is known to be) by the higher power Rom. 13. is the King principally in respect of dignity understood;¹ but not solely and onely, as if inferiour Judges were not higher powers. 1. I say in a free Monarchie: For no man can say, that where there is not a King, but onely Aristocracie, and government by States, as in Holland, that there the people are obliged to obey the King; and yet this Text, I hope, can reach the consciences of all Holland, that there every soul• must be subject to the higher powers, and yet not a subject in Holland is to be subject to any King: for non entis nulla sunt accidentia. 2. I said the King in a free Monarchie is here principally understood in regard of dignity, but not in regard of the essence of a magistrate, because the essence ⟨p. 351⟩of a Magistrate doth equally belong to all inferiour Magistrates, as to the King, as is already proved,² (let the Prelate answer if he can) for though some Judges be sent by the King, and have from him authority to judge, yet this doth no more prove that inferiour Judges are unproperly Judges, and onely such by analogie, & not essentially; Then it will prove a Citizen is not essentially a Citizen, nor a Church-officer essentially a Church-officer, nor a sonne not essentially a living creature, because the former have authority from the Incorporation of Citizens, and of Church-officers, and the latter hath his life by generation from his father, as Gods instrument. For though the Citizen and the Church-officers may be judged by their severall Incorporations that made them, yet are they also essentially Citizens and Church-officers, as those who made them such.

1The King only is not understood in the Text.The King onely is not understood in the Text.
2Th• King is principally understood in the Text, Rom. 13. in regard of dignity, but not only in regard of •ss•nce.