The Lord strooke him with leprousie vers 19. and then the Priests thrust him out of the holy place because of his uncleannesse according to the Law Nay sayes the Text vers 20. himselfe hasted also to goe out because the Lord had smitten him this example therefore makes nothing at all for the lawfulnesse of resisting the Kings person commanding against his owne Lawes Other examples as little to the purpose are also alleadged by those that would faine winde Gods Word to speake the language of their owne spirits but these onely were mentioned at our conference and therefore I will not spend time to answer any other which indeed are already answered by abler pens then mine Sect. 11 Now I come to the Argument from reason which in your thoughts as it seemes if you be in earnest doth imply a necessity of resistance in such a case Salus populi which is Suprema lex doth require it for thus you argue It is according to reason that every particular man should endeavour the preservation of his owne being yea 't is Lex naturae every member of the body every creature in the world will doe it ergo much more man who hath also the use of Reason to perswade him to defend himselfe against an unjust violence Indeed say you Christianity commands us patiently to submit when we are wronged by the Law but if against Law then we may stand upon our owne guard by all the Lawes of Nature and Nations As for example say you if a father or master whose commands are to be bounded within the compasse of their particlar relations shall by unjust violence require things unsuteable to be done the childe or servant may and ought to defend himselfe even to the disarming of his Governour so if a Prince shall command any thing beyond or beside the relation of his Kingly office as for example when a sentence is passed by a triall at Law for me against him he shall notwithstanding in his passion send to my house to do me violence I must defend my selfe and disarme him if I can for if in such a case I shall yeild my throat to his fury to be cut I shall be guilty of selfe murder and if this may be done for the safety of a private man then much more when Salus populi wrich is suprema lex doth require it These in breife as I remember were your Arguments and illustrations to which I thus answer First in generall Reason I grant ruleth well when Religion opposeth not but 't is her duty to vaile unto faith and therefore as you and I have often taught even reason her selfe must be denied in some cases as well as nature a Christian as well as another creature may and must looke to his owne preservation but we are bought with a price 1 Cor. 6.20 and so are not our owne nor must be in the first place for our selves the Honour of that profession which he that bought us hath entrusted us to maintaine must be preserved by us before life it selfe if selfe defence will blemish my Holy profession if resisting the King speakes rather the doctrine of the Iesuits then of Iesus I had rather by patience possesse my soule in safety then by opposing endeavour the preservation of my body Ob. But for the particular instances every member of the body say you will defend it selfe Answ True and all the Head yea every one of them will defend the Head before it selfe 't is naturall to them and if wee be right members of the Commonwealth the King is our Head Ob. Every Creature will endeavour the preservation of its own being Answ So will a reasonable man and a Christian in speciall ought so to do that he may do his Creator the more service but onely in that way and by those meanes as may not crosse the end of his beeing Ob. But Christianity commands to submit with patience onely when wronged by the Law Answ It hath beene already answered that Christian patience is not so limited if the Law be on my side when the King wrongs me my wrong is the greater and my patience in such a case is more glorious and comes nearer to perfection Ob. But the Kings Commands are bounded as those of a Father or master within the compasse of their particular relations Answ That is already denyed and must be better proved before I answer further onely this I adde that the similitude of a father or master is not to this case corresponding for 1. I am equall to my father or master as I am a Subject though their inferiour in my particular relation to them but so I am not to my Prince 2. I have a Law to warrant me to stand upon mine owne defence against them and to disarme them when they breake the Kings peace upon mee but I have not to justify me in my so doing against my Prince 3. The King hath not given a father or master potestatem vitae et necis over those that in their relations are under them as God hath given the King therefore although I may defend my selfe against them yet not against him to whom being the publick father and Lord I owe the greater duty and obedience and am to forsake them to serve him Answ 2 Besides I do not wholely yeild to the lawfulnesse of resisting a father or master onely for the unsuteablenesse of their command or perhaps because jujurious to the childe or servant if it be not impious in it selfe for that place of the Apostle seemeth to gainsay it servants bâ— subject to your Masters with all feare 1 Pet. 1 18.19 not onely to the good and gentle but also to the froward for this is thanke worthy if a man for Conscience sake toward God indure griefe suffering wrongfully q. d. when in the frowardnesse of their Spirits they command things unsuteable submit your selves and resist not now if subjection in such a case be due to Masters much more is it unto a Prince Answ 3 Or lastly I answer there is a medium between obeying and resisting in a case of that nature and that is complaining to those that are above them for fathers and masters are themselves also under Authourity unto which their children or servants may appeale for their own defence when unreasonable commands with violence are forced upon them and so may and must the Subjects do appeale to God in such a case 1 Sam. 8.18 who onely is above their Prince 1 Sam. 8.18 Ob. But suppose the streight be such that the Son or servant cannot appeale to the Magistrate hee must either yeild to the thing unlawfull or be killed if he do not resist Answ The case is never so between us and God Gen. 22.14 hee is every where to whom we may appeale yea providebit in monte our extremity is his best oportunity Quest But what warrant for this Answ I know your selfe at leasure can finde many I 'le minde
God who hast made me King and art above me hast authority to Judge me Pro. 24.21 for which reason The King in scripture is commanded to feare God only and none else whereas all other men are bidden to feare God and the King because they are liable to answer unto both if they doe evill the Preacher sayes Eccl. 8.4 no man may so much as say to a King what doest thou indeed reason sayes if equalls have not any power over each other much lesse have inferiours over their superiours from whom they receive all their Authority and strength A King is not servus populi the peoples servant no more then the Minister of the Gospell is their dog what ever the dialect of some is in these dayes of Liberty but a King is Minister Dei Rom. 13.4 and what hath any to do to Judge anothers servant Rom. 14.4 saith the Lord David surely was in the right when some moved him against King Saul no sayes he He is the Lords Annoynted to whom only it doth belong 1. Sam. 26.9.10 and not to me or any else to meddle with him the Lord shall smite him for who besides can do it and be guiltlesse It is the Kings Honour to have immediate dependance upon God 't is a part of his prerogative royall above other men and surely they are no freinds to the Kings Honour or to that high prerogative which God hath given him who would make him but equall with the Common sort The Hebrews say their High Preist both judged and was judged Defence of Eccles Disc bare witnesse and had witnesse borne against him but so had not their King nor was he judged of any man And the inconformist ministers in Queene Elizabeths dayes did acknowledge as much priviledge to be due to the Kings of England as ever was given to the Kings of Israell SECT II. The title of the Lords Anointed is proper and peculiar onely to the KING I do also beleeve that in regard of this immediate dependance the Title of the Lords Annoynted doth belong only unto Kings to Christ in the first place who is Rex Regum and then to them who are Kings under him 1. Ioh. 2.27 And though all sincere professors have received an annoynting from the Holy one yet I beleeve there is a difference inter Christos Christianos inter unctos Christi Christos Domini for though others were uncti yet I find not in scripture that Honourable title of Christus Domini conferred upon any save only Princes nor do I thinke they had it from that Ceremony of powring oyle upon them for before that was in use Abraham Isaak and Jacob were so called who were Patriarchs or Princes in their families or generations Ps 105.15 Gen. 23.6 Act. 2.29 which 2 names we know are both of one signification a Patriarch is a cheife father in government and so is a Prince Abraham is called a Prince and David a Patriarch But that Title was given to such for their eminency above others because of Gods designation of them to supremacy Es 45.1 and therefore it went also afterward without the Ceremony as well as with it Cyrus was Gods Annoynted and so is Carolus And I doe beleeve that royall unction must be acknowledged to give Princes an exemption from all harme or wrong who must in this respect be looked upon by all men as sacred persons David in his lamentation for Saul speakes as if his enemies ought to have had respect unto him in the battaile because he was anoynted with oyle and in the same Chapter the Amalikite a stranger was put to death because he had dared though desired by himselfe to rid him of his life 2. Sam. 1.21 because he was the Lords Annoynted And the Psalmist sayes that for Abraham and Isaacks sake God himselfe reproved Kings scilicit Pharaoh King of Egypt Ps 105.15 and Abimelech King of Gerar saying touch not mine Annoynted teaching thereby that such great respect is to be given by all the world to this High and Holy order of Kings that they must not be injured by their fellow Kings and if not by them then surely not by their own Subjects who have taken the oath of Allegiance unto them if they do them the least wrong either in word or deed God will reprove them after another fashion then he did Pharaoh and Abimeleck For in that Kings have obtained from God a more excellent name then other men it shews that they are of all others the most excellent persons God hath not said unto others at any time you are mine Anointed with mine holy Oile have I anointed you fit ye at my right hand and rule the Nations in my stead but to Kings he hath Others as was said are his Sancti but these are his Christi and that is more as the apple of his eye they must not be so much as touched for hurt either with hand or tongue or pen for touch the Anointed and ye touch the Lord they have not despised thee onely but mee they have despised saies God to his Vicegerent 1. Sam. 8.7 SECT III. Royall birth is equivalent with Royall unction and speakes the best Title to a Kingdome I do beleeve also that Royall Birth in those Kings that come to their Kingdomes by Inheritance is equivalent every way with Royall unction it speakes the same thing as truly and as loud which is onely a right title by Gods appointment without usurpation and royall unction spake no more this was the language of Royall birth of old as well as now for after the first of a Family had beene anointed to note Gods choyce unction was no more used in that family Bishop Andrews unlesse there arose a strife about the Kingdome as betweene Solomon and Adonijah Joash and Athaliah the eldest sonne of the Predecessour was afterward the Chosen of the Lord His Birthright spake the Lords Appointment as plainely as his forefathers unction had done and invested him with the title of the Lords Annointed as wee may see in Iosiah and Hezekiah and the other Kings of Iudah And I do beleeve that the Prince who is once possessed of a Kingdome coming to him by Inheritance can never by any upon any occasion be dispossessed thereof againe without Horrible impiety Sacriledge and Injustice in the Instruments Royall unction was an indeleble Character of old 2. Sam. 1.14 it could never more be wiped off where it was once powred on this was apparent in Saul who remained the Lords Anointed to his last gaspe David himselfe confessed it who durst not take the right of Government actually upon him while Saul lived although he had it in reversion being already anointed thereunto and had received the spirit thereof Now Royall Birth-right being the same in sense with Royall unction it followes that he who is truly borne unto a Kingdome is in like fort the Lords anoynted for ever according to right
innocent and had that day been Gods Instrument of so great salvation unto Israel Nay Peter Martyr addes further that if the people did any more then pray if they pressed violently upon Saul in making a mutiny they sinned so that the first example is nothing to the purpose The second is of Davids strengthening himselfe against Saul To which I answer that I finde not in Scripture that David ever strooke up the Drum or used any meanes to call or gather men unto him for any such end indeed 't is said 1 Sam. 22.2 that many that were afflicted as he was gathered themselves unto him and he became their Captaine so that properly he strengthened not himselfe they rather strengthened him or the Lord by them preserved him for that imployment whereunto he was appointed But doe we ever reade of any act of hostility that David with them did exercise against Saul or against any of his followers so long as Doeg was in favour they might well pretend that the King had ill Councellours about him yet we reade not of any violence that was used to remove them Nay very easily might David have revenged himselfe upon the Ziphites that did their good will to betray him into Sauls hand if his conscience would have served him to kill any of the Kings Subjects against the minde of the King Whereas you say that you gather from 1 Chron. 12. that David was 40000 strong in the dayes of Saul and 't is probable he did not lie still with his great Army I answer it is not apparent that all those Captaines mentioned in that Chapter brought all their men with them yet if it were so it makes against you that David being so strong should alway flee from Saul when pursued by him and resist never much lesse seeke after him should get him out of Sauls Kingdome with so many men following him and beg a place to dwell in of Achish King of Gath. But Sir the truth is David was never above 600 strong till about the time that Ziglag was burnt which was about the time of Sauls death and that great concourse of men mentioned 1 Chron. 12. came then to him it may be probable that they fled from the battaile wherein Saul was slaine for the Text sayes vers 21. some of them helped David against the Rovers And vers 22 23. 't is said They came to him to turne the Kingdome of Saul to him according to the word of the Lord. It was well knowne in Israel that David was appointed to succeed Saul and who will not at such a time looke to the Sun-rising Thus to my apprehension the second example is as farre from the marke as the former Beside David being an extraordinary person full of Gods spirit and by unction designed of God unto the Kingdome his example in such a case is not proper Sam. 23. The third you alleadged is the businesse at Keilah It is supposed say you that David would have defended that Towne against the King if the Inhabitants would have beene faithfull to him ergo 'T is lawfull to resist the King and to keepe his Townes against him We use to say à facto ad jus non valet consequentia indeed this was not factum yet I see not how it followes It is so supposed but not by every body for some may and perhaps as simply suppose because 't is said afterward Chron. 12.1 that David kept himselfe close in Ziglag that he would also here have lien close in Keilah if the men thereof would as Rahab did the spyes but have concealed him But by the way here is one thing notable David it seemes though he was 600 strong in that Towne would not venture upon it for to hold it untill he knew whether he should have the good will of the Inhabitants he did not seize upon it on the suddaine whether the King and they would or no before they were aware and keepe it by force against both robbing killing and plundering his fellow Subjects But to the place the Text sayes vers 9. 1. Sam. 23.9 that David knew that Saul secretly practiced mischiefe against him and thereupon fearing some treachery in the men of Keilah if he stayed there being in a great streight He asked counsell of God about the matter and the Lord answered him accordingly and this was all the businesse But if you will suppose further that David had a purpose to have kept the Towne against the King if the Citizens would have stood to him I hope it may be lawfull for me to suppose also that the Lord whose counsell was asked both could and would have inclined their hearts to have beene faithfull if the thing purposed had beene lawfull but Gods answer speakes to my apprehension his disallowance of it and so doubtlesse it did to Davids as appeares by his departure and his never attempting any such matter afterward if the answer of God had been cleane contrary to what it was or such as might in any sort have countenanced his stay there had beene some colour to have alleadged this story for this matter of resistance but Gods wisedome would not have any such example upon record in his Word he fore-saw that they who are so bold upon a bare supposition would have beene more bold if more could be upon a plaine example Gods answer therefore is such that all may understand if they please his refusall of a blessing upon such an enterprise If it be yet urged upon me farther as was before the Committee what I thinke David would have done if he had staid in Keilah till Saul came I must make the same answer as I did then what David would have done I cannot tell but I suppose the men of Keilah would have done to him as the men of Abell did to Sheba afterward even cut off his head and throwne it o're the wall had the King came or sent for to demand it But truly I wonder that the example of David should be alleadged in this case of fighting against the King considering what his deportment to Saul was at two severall times when he had him at such advantage Chron. 26. â—s 17 18 c. But now for the last example that of Vzziah who for going in the pride of his heart sayes the Text into the Temple to meddle with the Priests office was withstood by Azariah the Priest and fourescore Priests with him that were valiant men But how was he withstood by these men in the Temple not with swords or weapons but vers 18. They withstood Vzziah the King and said unto him it perteineth not to thee Vzziah to burne incense unto the Lord but to the Priests the sonnes of Aaron who are consecrated thereunto goe out of the Sanctuary therefore for thou hast trespassed neither shall it be for thine honour from the Lord God thus they withstood Vzziah by saying these words unto him Indeed when he persisted notwithstanding this
your Sovereigne to account for his breach to God if he were guilty or who gave you this Authority To my thoughts that saying of David concerning Saul should be able to tye up all hands from such an enterprise 1 Sam. 24.5 when his men moved him to take the advantage intimating that Gods providence according to some former promise as might seeme had afforded it on purpose O saies David God forbid what do so to my master the Lords Anointed lay hands on him absit mihi farre be it from me never let me come where God hath to do if such a thought lodge in my heart I have done more already in cutting off the lap of his Garment then I have comfort in 1 Sam. 26.9.10 So a little after when another like oportunity was tendered and some were ready to conclude for him that God had renewed the advantage to check his former fearfulnesse yea and to take away his scrupulousnesse one offered himselfe to do it for him give but your consent saies hee and I will warrant you shall never more be troubled with your Enemy O saies David by no meanes shall I suffer any to offer violence to the King Lord be mercifull unto mee and keepe me from such an Horrid thing I streightly charge you that you do it not as you love your own life for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Anointed and be guiltlesse if we marke the words well in both places they are denials with great vehemency and indeed let us all againe and againe observe his Arguments in both places for they are very suteable to this purpose 1. Hee is my master scilicet my Sovereign my Leige Lord I have taken my Oath to be true to him therefore my duty is to defend him against all the world though he forget himselfe towards mee and towards God too yet I must not forget my selfe towards him unto whom I am sworne nor towards God by whom I have sworn never servant or subject prospered that neglected his Oath and duty in a case of this nature shall I be a forsworn man shall I turn son of Belial Childe of the devill as those appeare to be that offer violence and affronts unto their Sovereigne no God forbid 2. Hee is the Lords Anoynted saies hee and this particular hee rests much upon repeats the Title over 3 or 4 times as we may observe in the places to manifest that awefull dread which he had in his own heart towards the King and to worke alike in the hearts of those his servants that moved him to so impious a mischeife and indeed of all Arguments 't is the most forceable to an Honest heart q.d. what shall I rise against God against him whom God hath anointed and marked shall I lay hands upon what is Holy Holy things are not to be meddled withall His Person is Holy in respect of unction his calling is holy and 't is sacriledge to offer violence to either His Anointing is the marke of God upon him et quos Deus unxit nemo tanget it is unlawful to meddle with anything that hath but another mans marke upon it with his sheepe his horse his servant that weares his Livery and shall I dare to meddle with him for hurt that hath the marke of God upon him O I dare not hee is none but God's and none but he may deale with him as God hath sentenced him so God shall put his own sentence in execution v. 10. of the 26. cap. as the Lord liveth the Lord shall smite him or his day may come to dye or hee shall descend into the battaile namely against the Philistines and perish But from mee he shall receive no dammage God may smite him if he please but I may not I must not though I know him to be rejected of God my self to be appointed of God to succeed him Gods hand may be upon him but mine shall never or his day may come to dye bvt not a day sooner for mee for I wot well hee is marked for God's Hee is the Lords Anointed 3. Who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Anointed and be guiltlesse namely of high treason before God and man hee whoever hee be shall be questioned for it and found guilty of the highest crime upon triall and shall have the due demerit of all Traitors they that stretch forth their hand in a violent way against Gods Anointed there will come a time when their necks shall have a violent stretch for it Hanging drawing and quartering is the punishment of such crimes God himselfe else will see execution done if Humane Lawes or power should faile in this particular one way or other God will bring judgement upon them even in this world beside that which remaines for them in the world to come for hee will never hold such guiltlesse The Psalmist speaking prophetically of strange children and such are all Traitors Ps 144.6.7 and Rebels of a strange birth a Bastard brood none of Gods saies cast out thy lightning and scatter them shoot out thine arrowes and destroy them c. God can from Heaven cut them off or hee can cause their owne beasts to helpe bring them to their deserved end as Absoloms mule did help to hang the Traitor his master or hee can give them up to hang themselves as Achitophel did Surely Sir God doth not use to chastise Princes for their failings by any of their own Subjects who are good men some perhaps that are vessels of wrath he permits on their owne head to make themselves instruments thereof before hand but good Subjects that are ordained to be vessels of mercy have hearts and spirits onely delighting in workes of love vessels of mercy hereafter are instruments of mercy here but whoever makes himselfe without authority Gods rod is sure to be thrown into the fire Had Zimri peace that slew his master Hee was a rod and he felt the fire Ob. Yea but say some in the Kings Oath there is quas vulgus elegerit the King must make and maintaine such Lawes as the common people shall thinke fit to make choice on therefore if the King do not so the common people or vulgus may force him or at least make Lawes without him for by that clause the King submits himselfe unto the people and dâ—th in effect say unto them as the good Emperour Trajan did unto his Officers use the sword against my selfe if I do not rule according to the Lawes Answ First for that speech of Trajan so oft quoted in pulpits and pamphlets to the shame as must be thought of Christian Princes and for their imitation I conceive it savoured more of Popularity then of Christianity and discovered the Author of it a ranke Heathen who knew not himselfe to hold his Authority of God for a King beeing Gods sole and immediate servant can no more give power to any of his people to draw the sword against himselfe then