SECTION II.

The Doctor saith, that the principle is untrue upon which they go that resist, and the conscience cannot find clear ground to rest upon for making resistance; for it hears the apostle express!y say, "Whosoever resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

In this his resolving of conscience, he endeavours to scare those that are tender with the word of damnation, and forbids this resistance upon pain of damnation. But the word in the Greek is rather to be translated judgment and punishment; and as Piscator observes,* thereby is not meant eternal damnation, but the punishment of the magistrate in this life as appears by the following words, which are given by the apostle as a reason of the former, thus: "They that resist shall receive to themselves judgment, for rulers are not a terror to good works but to evil.”

Then he proceeds to some examples of Scripture, which are brought by us to strengthen our doctrine, wherein he takes what he pleaseth, and leaves out what he lists. The first example alleged is that of the people rescuing Jonathan out of the hands of Saul; to which he answers, The people drew not into arms of themselves, but being there by Saul's command, did by a loving violence and importunity hinder the execution of a particular, passionate, and unlawful command.

Here the Doctor grants that the people used a violence, which is that that we would prove; but he doth not make it out by that scripture that it was a loving violence, which is the thing he should prove. Neither is there any thing in that place which doth argue that he was delivered by love, for it is said that the people rescued him; and what is the rescue by men in arms but a violence? According to the Doctor's position, they should not have rescued him, but only have defended themselves by prayers and tears, and left Jonathan to suffer; and therefore though he grants but a rescue by loving violence, he gives away his cause in the threshold of his work.

*Poenam gua sic malo quam condemnationem, puto enim hoc intelligendum de poena, quam infert magistratos, sicut verba frequentis declarant, et sic verbum xpivolaι accipitur pro punire. 1 Cor. vi. 11.—Piscator, Rom. xiii. ; 1 Sam. xiv.

The second example alleged, saith the Doctor, is David's resisting of Saul; to which he answers, that David's guard which he had about him, was only to secure his person against the cruelty of Saul, who sent to take away his life.

Therefore according to his own grounds, a parliament may take up a guard to secure their persons against the cutthroats that are about a king, and this is more than prayers, or tears, or mere sufferings, which the Doctor only allows in the following part of his discourse.

Herein also he gives his cause, for if David's guard was to secure his person against the cut-throats of Saul, if sent to take away his life, as he says, they could not secure David, but by fighting against those messengers of the king; and if he grants that messengers sent by the king, may be resisted by arms, he grants all that his adversaries contend for.

The Doctor saith, this practice of David's, was a mere defence without all violence offered to Saul.

But what think you then of David's words which he used to Achish, in 1 Sam. xxix. 8: "And David said unto Achish, What have I done, and what hast thou found in thy servant, so long as I have been with thee to this day, that I may not go fight against the enemies of my lord the king?" Amongst which enemies were Saul and his cut-throats, as the Doctor calls them.

But,

His adversaries desire no more from this instance of David, but an hostile defence; for where there is an hostile defence, though there be no blows given, yet the defender would strike if there were cause, else why is he in arms?

David also was but one subject; and if it were lawful for one subject to defend himself by way of hostility, much more for the representative body of the whole kingdom.

According to the Doctor's principles, David ought to have done no more than to have sought God with tears and prayers, and given up himself in a suffering way to the fury of Saul. And, therefore, though it were merely an hostile defence, yet it is more than his doctrine teacheth, and so in granting of this, he is contrary to what he says afterwards.

For the matter of Keilah, the Doctor answers our supposition, as he calls it, with his own saying: but whether David would have defended Keilah against Saul, I leave to the conscience of the reader, considering that this only is made the

reason of his removing from Keilah, because the men of Keilah would not be faithful unto him: for he did not inquire of the Lord whether it were lawful for him to abide in Keilah, but having inquired whether Saul would come down against him, and whether Keilah would deliver him up into Saul's hand; he removed from Keilah, because the Lord answered him that they would deliver him up; not because it was unlawful for him to keep the city, but because the city would be false to him.

And whereas the Doctor saith, that in all this the example of David was extraordinary, for he was anointed and designed by the Lord to succeed Saul;

I answer, Though David was God's anointed, yet he was Saul's subject; and though God did extraordinarily protect David, yet his extraordinary protection doth not argue that his practice was unlawful, but doth rather argue it to be more lawful and commendable: for God will not give extraordinary protections to unlawful actions, and if David's demeanour herein was extraordinary, then he had an extraordinary command for what he did. For it is not lawful for a man to step from God's ordinary way, but by some special commandment from God; and if he had such a command, then how is that true, which the Doctor saith afterward, that there is no command in Scripture for such a practice or kind of resistance as this.

In the words immediately before, the Doctor saith, This practice of David was a mere defence without all violence offered to Saul; and if so, how was his demeanour in standing out against Saul a work extraordinary? If it were a work extraordinary, then it was not a mere defence without all violence, for that is an ordinary work of the subjects toward the king.

Then the Doctor comes to other examples of his adversaries, whereby they contend, as he says, for resistanee, as that of the high priest resisting the king in the temple, and Elisha shutting the door against the king's messenger that came to take away his life; to the first he says, that the high priest did no more than what every minister may and ought to do, if the king should attempt to administer the sacrament, that is, reprove him, and keep the elements from him.

But if that were all, the priests should not have been com

mended for their valour, but their faithfulness: and, 2 Chron. xxvi. 17, it is said, that "Azariah the priest went after him, and with him fourscore priests of the Lord that were valiant men." In that they were commended here for valour, it shews that their work was not only reproof but resistance.

And whereas he says, That they thrust him out of the temple, because God's hand was first upon him, smiting him with leprosy, and by that discharging him of the kingdom also.

I answer, How does that appear out of Scripture, that the king's being smitten with the leprosy was an actual discharge from his crown?

Then the Doctor saith, Elisha's example speaks very little, but let us thence, saith he, take occasion to say, that personal defence is lawful against the sudden and illegal assaults of such messengers, yea of the prince himself, thus far, to ward his blows, to hold his hand, and the like, &c.

If you may ward his blows, and hold his hands, this is more than praying and crying and suffering.

Suppose the king hath an army with him, how can you hold an army's hands without an army? and therefore, according to his own words, it is lawful for the subjects considered state-wise, to raise an army to defend themselves.

But this instance of Elisha tells us, that messengers sent by the king to take away a man's life may be taken prisoners; is not that resistance? for Elisha said, "See you how this son of a murderer hath sent to take away my head? look, when the messenger cometh, shut the door, and hold him fast at the door," 2 Kings vi. 32.

Then the Doctor comes to answer a similitude of the body natural and politic, whereby it is argued, that as the body natural, so the body politic may defend itself: to which the Doctor answers, As the natural body defends itself against an outward force, but strives not by schism or contention within itself, so may the body politic against an outward power, but not as now, by one part of it set against the head, and another part of the same body.

Now, therefore, here the Doctor granteth that it is lawful for the natural body to defend itself against an outward force, and what is the militia for, especially, but against foreigners? Then the Doctor distinguisheth betwixt a personal defence and a general resistance by arms. He saith, A person

de

fence may be without all offence, and doth not strike at the order and power that is over us, as general resistance by arms doth, which doth immediately strike at that order which is the life of the commonweale, which, saith he, makes a large difference betwixt Elisha's shutting of the door against the king's messenger, and their resisting the king by armed men.

But why was Elisha's defence personal? Because he was but one person that was defended. Then if one man defend himself against a thousand in arms, that is a personal defence; or was it personal because only the person of the prophet made defence, and had none to assist him? Not so, because he spake to the elders to shut the door and hold him fast. And if this act of Elisha was contrary to the king's command, why did it not as immediately strike at the order and power that was over him, as our resistance doth now? Indeed if the subjects as private men, strengthened with no authority, should gather together in a rude multitude to oppose laws and governors, then that work should strike immediately at the order and power and life of a state; but that the state should send out an army to bring in delinquents to be tried at the highest court of the kingdom, that justice and judgment may run down like water which hath been stanched up, is rather to confirm and strengthen the order and power of authority; and so it is in our case.

Then the Doctor proceeds to some scriptures, wherewithal he thinks to strengthen his opinion; let us follow him: First, saith he, we have the two hundred and fifty princes of the congregation gathering the people against Moses and Aaron, Num. xvi. 3, and perishing in their sin.

I answer, that Moses and Aaron had not neglected their trust; and our question is in the general, laying aside all respect to our sovereign, whether a prince neglecting his trust, and doing that through his bad council which may tend to the ruin of a state, may not by the whole state be resisted therein? Now see how extremely wide this instance is from this question.

First of all, the two hundred and fifty princes of the congregation were not the whole people, nor the representative body, nor any employed by the whole people.

Secondly, Moses and Aaron had not offended, but were innocent.