Private men may make war against Princes if not theire owne as Abraham against the King of Babylon and his Neighbours So may Soveraign Princes against private men whether they be their owne subjects as David against Ishbosheth and his party or Strangers as the Romans against Pirates The onely doubt is whether any person or persons publique or private can make a lawful War against those that are set over them whether supream or subordinate unto them And in the First place It is on all hands granted That they that are Commissionated by the highest powers may make War against theire Inferiors as Nehemiah against â—obiâ— Sanballat by the Authority of Artaxtrxes But whether it be lawful for Subjects to make warre against those who have the supream power over them or against such as act by according to their Authority is the thing in question It is also by all good men acknowledged That if the Commands of a Prince shall manifestly contradict either the Law of Nature or the Divine precepts they are not to be obeyed for the Apostles when they urged that Maxim Act. 4. Deo magis quam hominibus obediendum That God is rather to be obeyed than man unto such as forbad them to preach in the Name of Jesus did but appeal to a principle of right Reason which Nature had insculp't in every mans breast and which Plato expresseth in almost the very same words But yet if either for this or any other cause any Injury be offered unto us because it so please him that hath the Soveraigne power it ought rather to be patiently tolerated than by Force resisted For although we do not owe an active Obedience to such commands of Princes yet we do owe a passive though we ought not to violate the laws of God or of Nature to fulfill the Will of the greatest Monarch yet ought we rather patiently to submit to whatsoever he shall inflict upon us for not Obeying than by Resistance to violate our Countryes Peact The best and safest Course we can steer in such a case is Either by Flight to preserve our selves or resolvedly to undergo whatsoever shall be imposed upon us 2. War against Superiors as such is unlawful And naturally all men have a Right to repell Injuries from themselves by Resisting them as we have already said but Civil Societies being once Instituted for the Preservation of the Peace there presently succeeded unto that Common-Wealth a certain greater Right over us ours so far forth as was necessary for that end And therefore that promiscuous Right that Nature gave us to râ—ssst the Common-Wealth for the maintaining of good Order and publick Peace hath a Right to prohibit which without all doubt it doth seeing that otherwise it cannot obtein the end it proposeth to it self For in case that Promiscuous Right of forcible Resistance should be tolerated it would be no longer a Common-Wealth that is a Sanctuary against Oppression but a confused Rabble such as that of the Cyclops whereof the Poet thus Where every Ass May on his wife children judgement pass A dissolute Company where All are speakers and none hearers like to unto that which Valerius records of the Bebriâ—ii Who all Leagues and Laws disdain And Justice which men's minds in peace retain Salust makes mention of a wild and savage people living like Beasts in Woods and mountains without Lawes and without Government whom he calls Aborigixes and in another place of the Getuli who had neither Lawes good Customs nor any Princes to govern them But Cities cannot subsist without these Generale pactum est societatis humanae Regibus obâ—aiâ—â— All humane societies saith St. Augustine unanimously agree in this to obey Kings So Aeschylus Kings live by their owne Lawes Subject to none And Sophocles They Princes are obey we must what not To the same Tune sings Euripides Folly in Kings must be with patience born Whereunto agrees that of Tacitus Principi summum rerum arbitrium Dii dederunt c. Subditis obsequii gloria relicta est God hath invested a Prince with Soveraign power leaving nothing to Subjects but the Glory of Obedience And here also Base things seem noble when by Princes done What they Impesâ— bear thou be 't right or wrong Sen. Wherewith agrees that of Salust Impune quid vis facere hoc est Regem esse To do any thing without fear of punishment is peculiar to Kings for as Mark Anthony urged in Herod 's Case If he were accountable for what he hath done as a King he could not be a King. Hence it is that the Majesty of such as have Soveraign power whether in one or more is fenced with so many and so severe Lawes and the Licentiousnesse of Subjects restrained with such sharp and exquisite Torments which were unreasonable if to resist them were lawfull If a Souldier resist his Captain that strikes him and but lay hold on his Paâ—tizan he shall be cashiered but if he either breake it or offer to strike againe he shall be put to Death For as Aristotle observes If he that is an Officer strike he shall not be struck againe 3. The Vnlawfulness of making War against our Superiours is proved by the Jewish Law. Jos 1. 18. 1. Sam. 8. 11. Dent. 17. 14. By the Hebrew Law He that behaved himself contumaciously against either the High Priest or against him who was extraordinarily by God ordained to govern his people was to be put to death and that which in the eighth Chapter of the first Booke of Samuel is spoken of the Right of Kings to him that throughly inspects it is neither to be understood of their true and just Rights that is of what they may do â—ustly and honestly for the Duty of Kings is much otherwise described Deut 8 11. nor is it to be understood barely of what he will do for then it had signified nothing that was singular or extraordinary for private men do the same to private men But it is to be understood of such a Fact as usurps or carries with it the priviledge of what is right that is that it must not be restisted although it be not right for Kings have a Right peculiar to themselves and what in others is punishable in them is not That old saying Summâ—m jus summa injuria Extreme right is extreme Wrong is best sitted to the Case of Kings whose absolute power makes that seem right which strictly taken is not so There is a main difference between Right in this sense taken and Just for in the former sence it comprehends whatsoever may be done without fear of Punishment but Just respect only things lawful and honest And though some Kings there be who are what Servius in Cicero's Philippicks is commanded to be Magis justitiae quam Juris consulti more regardful of their honour and duty than of their power and prerogatives yet this doth not diminish their Soveraign Right because if they will they may do
otherwise without the danger of being resisted And therefore it is added in that place of Samuel before cited That when the people should at any time be thus oppressed by their Kings as if there were no Remedy to be expected from men they should invoke His help who is the Supream Judge of the whole Earth So that whatsoever a King doth tho' the same done by an inferior person would be an Injury yet being done by him is Right As a Judge is said Jus reddere to do Right though the 〈◊〉 he gives be unrighteous 4. By the Gâ—s 〈◊〉 When Christ in the New-Testament Commanded to give Caesâ—r his due doubtless he intended that his Disciples should yield â—s great if not a greater Obedience as well active aâ— passive unto the higher power than what was due from the Jews to their Kings which St. Paul who was beâ—â— able to interpret his Masters Words expounding Romans 13. doth at large describe theduty of Subjects Charging those that resist the power of Kings with no less Crime than Rebellion against God's Ordinance and with a Judgment as great as their Sin For saith he They that do so resist shall receive unto themselâ—â—s damnation And a little aser he urgeth the Necessity of our Subjection Not altogether for fear but for conscience as knowing that he is the 〈◊〉 of God for our Good. Now if there be a necessity of our Subjection then there is the same necessity for our not resisting because he that resists is not subject Neither did the Apostle mean such a necessity of subjection as â—risâ—th from an apprehension of same worse inconvenience that might follow upon our resistance but such as proceeds from the sense of some benefit that we receive by it whereby we stand obliged in duty not unto man onely but unto God So that He that Resists the power of the sapream Magistrate incurrs a double Punishment saith Plato First from God for breaking that good Order which he hath constituted amongst men And Secondly From the Common Wealth whose righteous Laws made for the preservation of the publick peace are by Resistance Weakned and the Common-Wealth thereby 〈◊〉 For canst thou believe saith Plato that any City or Kingdom can long stand when the publick Decrees of the Senate shall be wiâ—fully 〈◊〉 and trampled upon by the over-swelling power of some private men who i◠〈◊〉 against the Execution of the Laws do as much as in them lies d ssolve 〈◊〉 Common-wealth consequntly bring all into confusion The Apostle therefore sortisies this Necessity of publick Subjection to Princes with 2 main Reasons First because God had constituted and approved of this order of Commanding and Obeying and that not only under the Jewish but under the Christian Law Wherefore the powers that are set over us are to be Observed not servilely superstitiously or out of Fear but with free rational generous Spirits tanquam a Diis aaâ—ae as being given by the Gods saith Plato or as St. Paul tanquam a Deo ordinaâ—ae as if ordained by God himself Which Order as it is Originally God's so by giving it a Civil Sanction it becoms ours also For thereby we add as much Authority to it as we can give The other Reason is drawn ab utsli from Profit because this Order is constituted for our good and therefore in Conscience is to be obeyed and not resisted But here some men may say That to bear injuries is not at all profitable unto us whereunto some men haply more truly than aposiâ—ely to the meaning of the Apostle give this Answer That patiently to bear Injuries conduceth much to our Benefit because it entitles us to a Reward far transcending our Sufferings as St. Paul testisies But though this also be true yet it is not as I conceive the proper and genuine sense of the Apostles words which doubtless have Respect to that Universal Good whereunto this Order was first instituted as to its proper end which was the publick peace wherein every particular man is as much concerned if not much more than in his Private for what Protection can good Laws give if Subjects may refuse to yield their obedience to them whereas by the Constant observance of good Laws all Estates both publick and private do grow up and flourish together Plato And certainly these are the good Fruits that we receive from the supream Powers for which in Conscience we owe them Obedience For no man did ever yet wish ill to himself But he that resists the power of the Magistrate and willfully violates the Laws established doth in effect as far as in him is dissolve his Countrey 's peace and will in the end bury himself also in the ruins of it Plato Besides the Glory of Kings consists in the prosperity of their Subjects When Sylla had by his Cruelty almost depopulated not Rome only but all Italy one seasonably admonisht him Sinendos esse aliquos vivere ut essent quibus imperet That some should be permitted to live over whom he might rule as a King. Floras Aug. de civ Dei. Lib. 3. cap. 28. It was a common Proverb among the Hebrews Nisi Potestas publica esset alter alterum vivum deglutiret Were it not for the Soveraign Powers every Kingdom would be like a great Pond wherein the greater Fish would alwaies devour the Lesser Agreeable whereunto is that of Chrysostome Vnless there were a power over us to restrain our inordinate Lusts Men would be more sierce cruel than Lions Tygers not only biting but eating devouring one another Take away Tribunals of Justice and you take away all Right Property and Dominion No man can say this is mine House this my Land these my Goods or my Servants but Omnia erunt Fortiorum the longest Sword would take all Chrys de statuis 6. ad Eph. The mighty man could be no longer secure of his estate than until a mightier than he came to dispossess him The weaker must alwaies give place to the Stronger and where the strength was equal the loss would be so too and this would at length introduce a general Ataxy which would be far more perilous than a perfect Slavery Wherefore seeing that God hath Established and humane Reason upon Tryal approved of Soveveraign Empire as the best Preservative of humane Societies that every mâ—n should yield Obedience thereunto is most rational For without Subjeâ— ion there can be no Proctection Objâ—ct But here it will he objected That The Commands of Pâ—irces do not 〈…〉 to the Publique Good and therefore when they 〈◊〉 from that â—nd for which they were ordained they ought not to be obeyed To which I answer That though the Supream Magistrate doth sometimes either through Fear Anger â—â—st Coveteousness or such like inordinate 〈…〉 the ordinary pâ—â—h of Justice and Equity yet are these 〈…〉 but seldome â— to be passed over as personal blemishes which aâ— Tacitus rightly observes are abundantly recompensed by the more frequent
inanimate The like we may say of Magistrates some are Supream who rule all and are ruled by none others are Subordinate who in respect of private men are publick Persons governing like Princes But in respect of the Supream Magistrate are but private men and are commandâ—d as Subjects For the power or faculty of Governing as it is derived from the Supream power so it is subject unto it And whatsoever is done by the inferior Magistrate contrary to the Will of the Supream is nuâ—â— and reputed but as a private Act for want of the Stamp of publick Authority All Order say Philosophers doth necessarily relate to somewhat that is first and highest from whence it takes its Rise and Beginning Now they that are of this Opinion that inseriour Magistrates may resist the Supream seem to introduce such a state of things as the Poets fansied to have been in Heaven before Majesty was thought on when the lesser gods denied the prerogative of Jupiter But this Order or Subordination of one to another is not only approved of by Common Experience as in every Family the Father is the head next unto him the Mother then the Children and after them the Servants and such as are under them So in every Kingdom Each power under Higher powers are And All Governours are under Government To which purpose is that notable saying of St. Augustine Observe saith he the degrees of all humane things If thy Tutor enjoin thee any thing thou must do it yet not in case the Proconsul command the contray neither must thou obey the Consul if thy Prince command othertherwise for in so doing thou canst not be said to contemn Authority but thou chusest to obey that which is highest Neither ought the lesser powers to be effended that the greater is preferred before them for 〈…〉 Grat. c. 11. q. 3 Qui◠〈◊〉 And that also of the sâ—me Father concerning Pilate Because 〈◊〉 he God hâ—d invessed 〈◊〉 such a power as was it self subordinate 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 But 〈…〉 approved of by Divine Authority For 〈◊〉 enjoyns us 〈…〉 unto Kings otherwise than unto Magistrates To â—ings as 〈◊〉 that is absolutely without Exceptions to any other Commands than those directly from God who is so far from justifying our Resistance that He commands our passive Obedience But unto Magistrates as they are deputed by Kings and as they derive their Authority form them And when St. Paul subjects every soul to the higher powers Rom. 13. doubtless he exempts not inferiour Magistrates Neither do we find among the Hebrews where there were so many Kings utterly regardless of the Laws both of God Men any inferior Magistrates among whom some without all question there were both pious and valiant that ever arrogated unto themselves this Right of Resisting by force the power of their Kings without an express command from God who alone haâ—â— an unlimited power and Jurisdiction over them But on the Contrary What duties inferior Magistrates owe unto their Kings though wicked Samuel will instruct us by his own Example who though he knew that Saul had corrupted himself and that God also had rejected him from being King yet before the people and before the Elders of Israel he gives him that Reverence and Respect that was due unto him 1. Sam. 15. 30. And so likewise the state of Religion publickly professed did never depend upon any other humane Authority but on that of the King and Sanhedrim For in that after the King the Magistrates with the People engaged themselves to the true Worship and Service of God it ought to be understood so far forth as it should be in the power of every one of them Nay the very Images of their false gods which were publickly erected and therefore could not but be scandalous to such as were truly religious yet were they never demolished so far as we can read of but at the special Command either of the people when the Government was popular or of Kings when the Government was kingly And if the Scriptures do make mention of any Violence sometimes offered unto Kings it is not to justifie the fact but to shew the Equity of the Divine providence in permitting it And whereas they of the contrary perswasion do frequently urge that excellent Saying of Trajan the Emperour who delivering a Sword to a Captain of the Praetorian Band said Hoc pro me uâ—ere si recte impero si male contra na Use this Sword for me if I Govern well but if otherwise against me We must know that Trajan as appears by Pliny's Panegyrick was not willing to assume unto himself Regal power but rather to behave himself as a good Prince who was willing to submit to the Judgment of the Senate and people whose Decrees he would have that Captain to execute though it were against himself Whose Example both Pertinax and Macrinus did afterwards follow whose excellent Speeches to this purpose are Recorded by Herodian The like we read of M. Anthony who refused to touch the publick sure without the consent of the Roman Senate 7. Of Resistance in case of inevitable Necessity But the Case will yet be more Difficult Whether this Law of not-Resisting do oblige us when the Dangers that threaten us be extream and otherwise inevitable For some of the Laws of God Himself though they sound absolutely yet seem to admit of some tacite Exceptions in cases of Extream Necessity For so it was by the wisest of the Jewish Doctors expresly determined concerning the Law of their Sabbath in the times of the Hasamonaeans whence rose that famous Saying among them Periculum animae impellit Sabbatum The danger of a man's Life drives away the Sabbath When the Jew in Synesius was accused for the breach of the Sabbath he excuseth himself by another Law and that more forcible saying We were in manifest jeopardy of our lives When Bacchides had brought the Army of the Jews into a great Strait on their Sabbath day placing cing his Army before them and behind them the River Jordan being on both sides Jonathan thus bespake his Souldiers Let us go up now fight for our lives for it standeth not with us to day as in times past 1. Mac. 9. 43 44 45. Which case of Necessity is approved of even by Christ Himself as well in this Law of the Sabbath as in that of not eating the Shew-bread And the Hebrew Doctors pretending the Authority of an ancient Tradition do rightly interpret their Laws made against the eating of meats forbidden with this tacite Exception Not that it was not just with God to have obliged us even unto death but that some Laws of His are conversant about such matters as it cannot easily be believed that they were intended to have been prosecuted with so much Rigour as to reduce us to such an Extremity as to dy rather than to disobey them which in humane laws doth yet further proceed I deny not but that some Acts of Vertue are
mine Enemy but I dare not transgress the Commands of God. Lib. 2. And Josephus speaking of David after he had cut off Sauls Garment saith That his heart smote him So that he confessed Injustuâ— facinus crat Regem suum occidere It was a a wicked act to kill his Soveraign And presently after Horrendum Regem quamvis malum occidâ—re poenam enim id factenti imminere constat ab eo qui Regem dedit It is an horrid act to kill a King though wicked for certainly He by whose providence all Kings reign will pursue the Regicide with vengeance inevitably To reproach any private man falsely is forbidden by the Law but of a King we must not speak evil though he deserve it because as he that wrote the Problems fathered upon Aristotle saith He that speaketh evil of the Governour scandalizeth the whole City So Joab concludes concerning Shimei as Josephus testifies Shalt thou not dye who presumest to curse him whom God hath placed in the Throne of the Kingdom The Laws saith Julian are very severe on the behalf of Princes for he that is injurious unto them doth wilfully trample upon the Laws themselves Misopogoris Now if we must not speak evil of Kings much less must we do evil against them David repented but for offering violence to Saul's Garments so great was the Reverence that he bare to his person and deservedly For since their Soveraign power cannot but expose them to the General Hatred therefore it is sit that their security should especially be provided for This saith Quintilian to the fate of such as sit at the Stern of Government that they cannot discharge their Duty faithfully nor provide for the publick safety without the envy of many And for this cause are the persons of Kings guarded with such severe Laws which seeem like Draco's to be wrote in blood as may appear by those enacted by the Romans for the security of their Tribunes whereby their persons became inviolable Amongst other wise Sayings of the Esseni this was one That the persons of Kings should be held as sacred And that of Homer was ast noable His chiefest care was for the King That nothing should endanger him And no marvel For as St. Chrysostome well observes If any man kill a sheep he but lessens the number of them but if he kill the Shepherd he dissipates the whole flâ—ck The very Name of a King as Curtius tel's us among such nations as were governed by Kings was as venerable as that of God. So Artabanus the Persian Amongst many and â—â—â—se most excellent Laws we have this seems to be the best which commands us to aâ—ore our Kings as the very image of God who is the Saviour of all And therefore as Plutarch speakes Nec â—as nec lâ—iâ—um est Regis corpori manus inferre It is not permitted by the Laws of God or man to offer violence to the person of a King. But as the same Plutarch in another place tells us The principal part of 〈◊〉 is to save him that saves all If the eye observe a blow threatning the head the hand being instructed by nature interposeth it self as preferring the safety of the head whereupon all other members depend before their own Wherefore as Cassiodâ—â—e notes He that with the loss of his own life Redeems the Life of his Prince doth well if in so doing he propose to himself the freeing of his own soul rather than that of another mans body for as conscience teacheth him to express his sidelity to his Soveraign so doth right Reason instruct him to prefer the life of his Prince before the safety of his own body But here a more difficult question ariseth as namely Whether what was lawful for David and the Maccabees be likewise lawful for us Christians Or whether Christ who so often enjoins us to take up our Cross do not require from us a greater measure of patience Surely where our Superiours threaten us with Death upon the account of Religion our Saviour advised such as are not obliged by the necessary Duties of their Calling to reside in any one place to flee but beyond this nothing St. Peter tells us That Christ in his suffering left us an ensample who tho' he knew no sin nor had any guile found in his mouth yet being reviled reviled not again when he suffered he threatned not but remmitted his cause to him that judgeth righteously 1. Pet. 4. 12 13 14 15 16. Nay he adviseth us to give thanks unto God and to rejoice when we suffer persecution for our Religion and we may read how mightily Christian Religion hath grown and been advanced by this admirable gift of patience wherefore how injurious to those anc ent Christians who living in or near the times of either the Apostles themselves or men truly Apostolical must needs be well instructed in their Discipline and consequently walked more exactly according to their Rules yet suffered death for their saith how injurious I say to these men are they who hold that they wanted not a Will to resist but rather a power to defend themselves at the approach of death Surety Tertullian had never been so imprudent nay so impudent as so considently to have affirmed such an untruth whereof he knew the Emperor could not be ignorant when he wrote thus unto him If we had a will to take our private Revenge or to act as publick Enemies could we want either numâ—â—rs of men or stores of warlike Previsions Are the Moors Germans Partisians or the people of any one Nation more than those of the whole Worlâ— We though strangers yet dâ— fill all places in your Dominions your Cities Islands Castles Forts Assemblies your very Camps Tribes Courâ—s Palaces Seâ—â— es only your Temples we leave to your selves For what war have we not alwaies declared our selves sit and ready though in Numbers of men we have sometimes been very unequal How cometh it then to p ss that we suffer Death so meekly so patiently but that we are instructed by our Religion that it is much better to be killed than to kill Cyprian also treading in his Masters steps openly declares That it was from the principles of their Religion that Christians being apprehended made no Resistance nor attempted any revenge for injuries unjustly done them though they wanted neither numbers of men nor other means to have resisted but it was their confidence of some diviâ—e Vengeance that would fall upon their persecutors that made them thus patient that perswaded the innocent to give way to the nocent Lib. 5. So Lactantius We are willing to conside in the Majesty of God who is able as well to revenge the contempt done to Himself as the injuries and hardships done unto us Wherefore though our sufferings be such as cannot be expressed yet we do not mutter a word of discontent but refer our selves wholly to him who judgeth righteously And to the same tune sings St Augustine When Princes err they
so strictly enjoyned that if we perform them not we may justly be put to Death As for a Centinel to forsake his Station But neither is this rashly to be understood to be the Will of the Law-giver Nor do men assume so much Right over either themselves or others unless it be when so far forth as extreme Necessity requires it For all humane laws are so constituted or so to be understood as that there should be some allowance for humane Frailty The right understanding of this Law of Resisting or not-Resisting the Highest powers in cases of inevitable Necessity seems much to depend upon the Intention of those who first entered into Civil Society from whom the Right of Government is devolved upon the persons governing who had they been demanded Whether they would have imposed such a yoke upon all Mankind as death it self rather than in any case by force to repel the Insolencies of their Superiours I much question whether they would have granted it unless it had been in such a case where such Resistance could not be made without great Commotions in the Common-Wealth or the certain Destruction of many Innocents for what Charity commends in such a case to be done may I doubt not pass for an humane Law. But some may say that this rigid Obligation â—o dye rather than at any time to Resist Injuries done by our Superiours is not imposed on us by any Humane but by the Divine Law. But we must observe That men did not at first unite themselves in Civil Society by any special Command from God but voluntarily out of a sence they had of their own impotency to repel force and Violence wh lst they lived solitarily and in Families appart whence the civil power takes it Rise For which cause it is that St. Peter calls it an humane Ordinance although it be else-where called a Divine Ordinance because this wholesome Constitution of men was approved of by God Himsef But God in approving an humane Law may be thought to approve of it as an humane law after an humane manner Barkly who was the stoutest Champion in defending Kingly Power doth notwithstanding thus far allow That the People or the Nobler part of them have a Right to defend themselves against cruel Tyranny and yet he confesseth that the whole Body of the people is subject unto the King. Barkley Lib. 3. contra Monarchomach c. 8. Now this I shall easily admit That the more we desire to secure any thing by Law the more express and peremptory should that Law be and the fewer exceptions there should be from it for they that have a mind to violate that Law will presently seek shelter and think themselves priviledged by those Exceptions though their Cases be far different yet dare I not condemn indifferently either every private man or every though lesser part of the people who as their last Refuge in cases of extream Necessity have anciently made use of their Arms to defend themselves yet with respect had to the Common Good. For David who saving in some particular Facts was so celebrated for his integrity did yet entertain first four hundred and afterwards more armed men to what end unless for the safegaurd of his own person against any violence that should be offered him But this also we must note That David did not this until he had been assured both by Jonathan and by many other infallible Arguments that Saul sought his life and that even then he never invaded any City nor made an offensive Warr against any but lurked only for his own security sometimes in Mountains sometimes in Caves and such like devious places and sometimes in forreign Nations with this Resolution to decline all occasions of annoying his own Countrey-men A Fact parallel to this of David's we may read in the Maccabees For whereas some seek to defend the Wars of the Maccabees upon this ground That Antiochus was not a King but an Usurper this I account but frivolous for in the whole Story of the Macabees we shall never find Antiochus mentioned by any of their own party by any other Title than by that of King and deservedly For the Hebrews had long before submitted to the 〈◊〉 Empire in whose Right Antiochus succeeded And whereas the Hebrew Laws forbad a Stranger to be set over them this was to be understood by a voluntary Election and not by an involuntary Compulsion through the Necessity of the times And whereas others say That the Maccabees did act by the peoples Right to whom belonged the Right of Governing themselves by their own Laws neither is this probable For the Jews being first conquered by Nebuchadâ—osor were by the Right of War subject unto him and afterwards became by the â—ame Law subject to the Medes and Persians as successours to the Chaldeans whose whole Empire did at last devolve upon the Macedonians And hence it is That the Jews in Tactius are termed The most servile of all the Eastern Nations neither did they require any Covenants or Conditions from Alexander or his successours but yielded themselves freely without any Limitations or Exceptions as before they had done unto Darius And though they were permitted sometimes to use their own Rites and publickly to exercise their own Laws yet was not this due unto them by any Law that was added unto the Empire but only by a precarious Right that was indulged unto them by the Favour of their Kings There was nothing then that could justifie the Maccabees in their taking of Arms but that invincible Law of Extream Necessity which might do it so long as they contained themselves within the bounds of Self-Preservation and in imitation of David betook themselves to secret places in order to their own security never offering to make use of their Armes unless violently assaulted In the mean time great Care is to be taken that even when we are thus enforced to defend our selves in cases of certain and extream danger we spare the person of the King for they that conceive the carriage of David towards Saul to proceed not so much from the Necessity of Duty as out of some deeper consideration are mistaken for David himself declares that no man can be innocent that stretcheth forth his hand against the Lord 's Annointed 1. Sam. 26. 9. Because he very well knew that it was written in the Law Thou shalâ— not â—â—e Gods that is the Supream Judges Thou shalt not curse the Rulers of thy people Exod. 22. 28. In which Law special mention being made of the Supream power it evidently shews That some special Duty towards them is required of us Wherefore Optatus Melevitanus speaking of this Fact of David saith That God's special Command coming fresh into his memory did so restrain him that he could not hurt Saul though his mortal enemy Wherefore he brings in David thus reasoning with himself Volebam hostem vincere sed prius est Divina praecepta observare Willingly I would overcome