Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	act_n	king_n	parliament_n	4,616	5	7.4258	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A91298	The third part of The soveraigne povver of parliaments and kingdomes. Wherein the Parliaments present necessary defensive warre against the Kings offensive malignant, popish forces; and subjects taking up defensive armes against their soveraignes, and their armies in some cases, is copiously manifested, to be just, lawfull, both in point of law and conscience; and neither treason nor rebellion in either; by inpregnable reasons and authorities of all kindes. Together with a satisfactory answer to all objections, from law, Scripture, fathers, reason, hitherto alledged by Dr. Ferne, or any other late opposite pamphleters, whose grosse mistakes in true stating of the present controversie, in sundry points of divinity, antiquity, history, with their absurd irrationall logicke and theologie, are here more fully discovered, refuted, than hitherto they have been by any: besides other particulars of great concernment. / By William Prynne, utter-barrester, of Lincolnes Inne. It is this eighth day of May, 1643. ordered ... that this booke, ... be printed by Michael Sparke, senior. John White.; Soveraigne power of parliaments and kingdomes. Part 3	Prynne, William, 1600-1669.; England and Wales. Parliament. House of Commons.	1643 (1643)	Wing P4103; Thomason E248_3; ESTC R203191	213,081	158

reports that Symon after his death grew famous by many miracles which for feare of the King came not in publicke Thus this Historian thus Robert Grosthead the most devout and learned Bishop of that age who most of any opposed the Popes Vsurpations and exactions determine of the justice and lawfulnesse of the Barons Warres Walter Bishop of Worcester concurring in the same opinion with Grosthead The same author Rishanger records that the Earle of Glocester a great stickler in these warres against the king with whom at last he accorded signified to the King by his Letters Patents under his seale that he would never beare Armes against the King his Lord nor against his Sonne Prince Edward NISI DEFENDO but onely in his Defence which the King and Prince accepting of clearely proves that defensive Armes against King or Prince were in that age generally reputed Lawfull by King Prince Prelates Nobles People I may likewise adde to this what I read in Matthew Westminster that Richard Bishop of Chichester the day before the battle of Lewis against King Henry and his sonne who were taken prisoners in it by the Barons and 20000. of their Souldiers slaine absolved all that went to fight against the King their Lord from all their sinnes Such confidence had he of the goodnesse of the cause and justnesse of the warre In one word the oath of association prescribed by the Barons to the King of Romans brother to King Henry the third in the 43. yeare of his Raigne Heare all men that I Richard Earle of Cornewall doe here sweare upon the holy Evangelists that I shall be faithfull and diligent to reforme with you the Kingdome of England hitherto by the councell of wicked persons overmuch disordered and be an effectuall Co●djutor TO EXPELL THE REBELLS and disturbers of the same And this Oath I will inviolaby observe under pa●ne of losing all the lands I have in England So helpe me God Which Oath all the Barrons and their associates tooke by vertue whereof they tooke up armes against the Kings ill Councellors and himselfe when he joined with them sufficiently demonstrates their publicke opinions and judgements of the lawfulnesse the justnesse of their warres and of all other necessarie defensive armes taken up by the Kingdomes generall assent for preservation of its Lawes Liberties and suppression of those Rebels and ill Councellors who fight against or labour to subvert them by their policies In the third yeare of King Edward the 2 d this king revoking his great Mynion Piers Gaveston newly banished by the Parliament into Ireland and admitting him into as great favour as before contrary to his oath and promise the Barrons hereupon by common consent sent the King word that he should banish Piers from his company according to his agreement or else they would certain●ly rise up against him as a perjured person Vpon which the King much terrified suffers Piers to abjure the Realme who returning againe soone after to the Court at Yorke where the king entertained him the Lords spirituall and temporall to preserve he liberties of the Church and Realme sent an honourable message to the King to deliver Piers into their hands or banish him for the preservation of the peace Treasure and weale of the Kingdome this wilfull King denies their just request whereupon the Lords thus contemned and deluded raised an army and march with all speede towards New-Castle NOT TO OFFER INIVRIE OR MOLESTATION TO THE KING but to apprehend Peirs and judge him according to Law upon this the King fleeth together with Peirs to Tinemouth and from thence to Scarborough Castle where Piers is forced to render himselfe to the Barrons who at Warwicke Castle without any legall triall by meere martiall Law beheaded him as a subvertor of the Lawes and an OPEN TRAITOR TO THE KINGDOME For which facts this King afterwards reprehending and accusing the Lords in Parliament in the 7 th yeare of his Raigne they stoutly answered THAT THEY HAD NOT OFFENDED IN ANY ONE POINT BVT DESERVED HIS ROYAL FAVOVR for they HAD NOT GATHERED FORCE AGAINST HIM though he were in Piers his company assisted countenanced and fled with him BVT AGAINST THE PVBLICKE ENEMIE OF THE REALME Whereupon there were two acts of oblivion passed by the King Lords and Commons assembled in that Parliament Printed in the 2 d Part of old Magna Charta The first that no person on the Kings part should be questioned molested impeached imprisoned and brought to judgement for causing Pierce to returne from Exile or harboring councelling or ayding hi●●ere after his returne The second on the Barons part in these words It is provided by the King and by the Archbishops Bishops Abbots Priors Earles Bar●s and Commons of the Realme assembled according to our Command and unanimously assented and accorded that none of what estate or condition soever he be shall in time to come be appealed or challenged for the apprehending deteining or death of Peirsde Gaveston nor shall for the said death be apprehended nor imprisoned impeached molested nor grieved nor judgement given against him by us nor by others at our suite nor at the suite of any other either in the Kings Court or elsewhere Which act the King by his Writ sent to the Judges of the Kings Bench commanding that this grant and concord shall be firme and stable in all its points and that every of them should be held and kept in perpetuitie to which end he commands them to cause this act to be there inrolled and firmely kept for ever A pregnant evidence that the Barons taking up Armes then against this Traytor and enemie of the Realme in pursuance of the Act and sentence of Parliament for his banishment though the King were in his company and assisted him all he might was then both by King and Parliament adjudged no Treason nor Rebellion at all in point of Law but a just honorable action Wherefore their taking up Armes is not mentioned in this Act of oblivion seeing they all held it just but their putting Piers to death without legall triall which in strictnesse of Law could not be justified Now whether this be not the Parliaments and kingdomes present case in point of Law who tooke up armes principally at first for defence of their owne Priviledges of Parliament and apprehention of delinquents who seducing the king withdrew him from the Parliament and caused him to raise an Army to shelter themselves under its power against the Parliament let every reasonable man determine and if it be so we see this ancient Act of Parliament resolves it to be no high Treason nor Rebellion nor offence against the King but a just lawfull act for the kings the kingdomes honour and safety Not long after this the two Spensers getting into the kings favour and seducing miscouncelling him as much as Gaveston did the Lords and Barrons hereupon in the 14 th and 15 th yeares of his raigne confederated

Tamerlain Emperour of the Tartars denounced warre unto Bajazet King of the Turkes who then besieged Constantinople saying That he was comming to chastise his Tyrannie and to deliver the afflicted people and vanquishing him in battle routed his Army and taking the Tyrant prisoner he kept him in chains in an Iron Cage till he dyed Neither in this case is it materiall that such a vertuous Prince being a stranger proceede against a Tyrant by open force or fiercenesse or else by way of justice True it is that a valient and worthy Prince having the Tyrant in his power shall gaine more honour by bringing him unto his tryall to chastise him as a murtherer a manqueller and a robber rather than to use the Law of Armes against him Wherefore let us resolve on this that it is lawfull for any stranger Prince to kill a Tyrant that is to say a man of all men infamed and notorious for the oppression murder and slaughter of his subjects and people And in this sort our Queene Elizabeth ayded the Low-Countries against the Tyrannie and oppressions of the King of Spaine and the King of Sweden of late yeares the Princes of Germany against the Tyranny and usurpations of the Emperor upon their sollicitation If then it be thus lawfull for Subjects to call in forraigne Princes to releeve them against the Tyrannie and oppressions of their kings as the Barons in King Iohns time prayed in ayde from Philip and Lewis of France against his tyrannie and those Princes in such cases may justly kill depose or judicially condemne these oppressing Kings and put them to death I conceive these whole kingdomes and Parliaments may with farre better reason lesse danger and greater safety to themselvs their Kings and Realmes take up defensive Armes of their owne to repulse their violence For if they may lawfully helpe themselves and vindicate their Liberties from their Kings encroachments by the assistance and Armes of forraigne Princes who have no relation to them nor particular interest in the differences betweene their kings and them which can hardly be effected without subjecting themselves to a forraigne power the death or deposition of the oppressing King much more may they defend and releeve themselves against him by their owne domesticke Forces if they be able by generall consent of the Realme because they have a particular interest and ingagement to defend their owne persons estates liberties which forraigners want and by such domesticke Forces may prevent a forraigne subjection preserve the life of the oppressing Prince and succession of the Crowne in the hereditary line which forraigne Armies most commonly endanger And certainely it is all one in point of Reason State Law Conscience for Subjects to relieve themselves and make a defensive warre against their Soveraigne by forraigne Princes Armes as by their owne and if the first be just and lawfull as all men generally grant without contradiction and Bracton to l. 2. c. 16. I see no colour but the latter must bee just and lawfull too yea then the first rather because lesse dangerous lesse inconvenient to King and Kingdome From Reasons I shall next proceed to punctuall Authorities Not to mention our ancient Brittons taking up of armes by joint consent against their oppressing tyrannizing Kings A●chigallo Emerian and Vortigern whom they both expelled and deposed for their tyranny and mis-government nor our Saxons ray sing defensive Forces against King Sigebert Osfred Ethelred Beornard Coolwulfe and Edwyn who were forcibly expelled and deprived by their Subjects for their bloody cruelties and oppressions which actions the whole Kingdome then and those Historians who recorded them since reputed just and honourable and no Treason nor Rebellion in Law or Conscience being for the Kingdomes necessary preservation and the peoples just defence which Histories I have elsewhere more largely related Nor yet to insist long on the fore-mentioned Barons warre against king Iohn and Henry the 3 d. for regaining establishing preserving Magna Cha●ta and other Liberties of the Realme which our Kings had almost utterly deprived them off I shall onely give you some few briefe observations touching these warres to cleare them from those blacke aspersions of Rebellion Treason and the like which some late Historians especially Iohn Speed to flatter those Kings to whom they Dedicated their Histories have cast upon them contrary to the judgement of our ancienter Choniclers and Matthew Paris who generally repute them lawfull and honourable First then consider what opinion the Prelates Barons and Kingdome in generall had of these Warres at first Anno 1414. in a Parliament held at Pauls the 16. yeare of King Iohns raigne Steven Langton Archbishop of Canterbury produced a Charter of King Henry the First whereby he granted the Ancient Liberties of the Kingdome of England which had by his Predecessors beene oppressed with unjust exactions according to the Lawes of King Edward with those emendations which his Father by the counsell of his Barons did ratifie which Charter being read before the Barons they much rejoyced and swore in the presence of the Archbishop that for these Liberties they would if need required spend their blood which being openly done in Parliament they would never have taken such a publike solemne Oath had they deemed a Warre against the King for recovery or defence of these their Liberties unlawfull and no lesse then Treason and Rebellion in point of Law or Conscience After this the Barons assembling at Saint Edmond●bury conferred about the said Charter and swore upon the high Altar That if King Iohn refused to confirme and restore unto them those Liberties the Rights of the Kingdome they would make Warre upon him and withdraw themselves from his Allegiance untill he had ratified them all w●th his Charter under his great Seale And further agreed after Christmas to Petition him for the same and in the meane time to provide themselves of Horse and Furniture to be ready if the King should start from his Oath made at Winchester at the time of his absolution for confirmation of these Liberties and compell him to satisfie their demand After Christmas they repaire in a Military manner to the King lying in the new Temple urging their desires with great vehemencie the King seeing their resolution and inclination to warre made answer That for the matter they required he would take consideration till after Easter next In the meane time he tooke upon him the Crosse rather through feare then devotion supposing himselfe to bee more safe under that Protection And to shew his desperate malice and wilfulnesse who rather then not to have an absolute domination over his people to doe what he listed would be any thing himselfe under any other that would but support him in his violences he sent an Embassage the most base and impious that ever yet was sent by any free and Christian Prince unto Miramumalim the Moore intituled the great King of Affrica Morocco and Spaine wherein

vos mala facere valeatis Dico vobis non erit diu inultum si haec ita facere pergitis c. Here this holy man prohibited by his orders to fight against this King his Soveraigne with his Sword fights strongly against and resists his violence with his Penne. And although he may not use a Sword and Buckler in respect of his calling to defend his mother the Church against him yet he is so farre from yeelding obedience to and not resisting him according to Pauls and Peters pretended injunctions that he expresly tels him to his face That HE WOULD STAND AND FIGHT AGAINST HIM EVEN UNTO DEATH if there were need with such weapons as he being a Monk and Minister might use to wit with Prayers and teares though not with Sword and Buckler which were more prevalent with God against him then any other Armes So that he resists him in the very highest straine that may be and clearely admits that Lay-men who might lawfully use Swords and Bucklers might with them justly defend the Church in standing and fighting for it against him even to death as well as he might doe it with prayers and teares his proper Armes Which answers that objection out of his 170. Epistle written to the same King and his 183 Epistle to Conrade King of Romans where he subjects these Kings to the Pope whom he adviseth them to obey and reprehends them for their misdemeanours notwithstanding that text of Rom. 13 which he there recites The fourth authority is the example of the primitive Christians who submitted themselves willingly to their persecuting Emperours without resistance in word or deed For proofe whereof severall passages are recited out of Fathers which I shal conjoyne the first is out of Tertullian his Apologeticus Quoties enim in Christianos d●saevitis partim animis propriis partim legibus obsequentes Quoties etiam praeteritis à vobis SUO JURE NOS INIMICUM VULGUS invadit lapidibus incendiis Ipsis Bacchanalium furiis nec mortuis parcunt Christianis quin illos de requie sepulturae de asylo quodam mortis jam alios jam nec totos avellant dissecent distrahant quid tamen de tam conspiratis unquam denotatis de tam animatis ad mortem usque pro injuria repensatis quamvis vel una nox pauculis faculis largitatem ultionis posset operari si malum malo dispurgi penes nos liceret Sed absit ut aut igni humano vindicetur divina secta aut doleat pati in quo probatu● Si e●im in hostes exortos non tantum vindices occultos agere vellemus de●sset nobis vis numerorum copiarum Plures nimirum Mauri Marcomanni ipsique Parthi vel quantaecunque unius tamen loci suorum finium gentes quàm totiùs orbis Externi sumus vestra omnia implevimus urbes insulas castella municipia conciliabula castra ipsa tribus decurias palatium senatum forum sola vobis relinquimus templa Cui Bello non idonei non prompti fuissemus etiam impares copiis QUI TAM LIBENTER TRUCIDAMUR Si non apud istam disciplinam MAGIS OCCIDI LICERET QUAM OCCIDERE Potuimus inermes NEC REBELLES sed tantummodo discordes solius divortii invidia adversus vos dimicasse Si enim tanta vis hominum in aliquem orbis remoti sinum abrupissemus semus â vobis suffudisset utique damnationem vestram tot qualiumcunque amissio civium imò etiam ipsa institutione punisset proculdubio expavissetis ad solitudinem vestram ad silentium rerum stuporem quendam quasi mortui urbes quaesissetis quibus imperaretis Plures hostes quàm cives vobis remanisissent nunc enim pauciores hostes habetis prae multitudine Christianorum penè omnium civium Which S. Cyprian Tertullians imitator thus seconds Laedere Dei Christi servos persecutionibus tuis desine quos laesos ultio divina defendit Inde est enim quod nemo nostrum quando apprehenditur reluctatur nec se adversus injustam violentiam vestram quamvis nimius copiosus noster sit populus ulciscitur Patientes facit de secutura ultione securitas Innocentes nocentibus cedunt Insontes poenis cruciatibus acquiescunt certi fidentes quod in ultum non remaneat quodcunque perpetimur quantoque major fuerit persecutionis injuria tantò justior fiat gravior pro persecutione vindicta Which Lactantius thus trebles Confidimus enim Majestati ejus qui tam contemptum sui possit vlcisci quam servorum suorum labores injurias Et ideo cum tam nefanda perpetimur ne verbo quidem reluctamur sed Deo remittimuus ulti●n●s Saint Angustine relates the same in these words Neque tunc Civitas Christi quamvis ad huc peregrinaretur in terra haberet tam magnorum agmina populorum adversus impios persecutores pro temporali salute pugnavit sed potius ut obtineret aeternam non repugnavit ligabantur includebantur caedebantur torquebantur urebantur laeniabantur cruciabantur multiplicabantur Non erat iis pro salute pugnare nisi salutem pro salute contemnere The summe of all these Fathers sayings which I have largely cited because I would conceale nothing that might be materially objected is this That the Christians in the primitive Church though they were many in number and sufficiently able to defend themselves against their persecuters by force of Armes did yet refuse to doe it yeelding themselves up to any tortures punishments deaths without the least resistance in word or deed Ergo the Parliament and Kingdome ought now to make no resistance at all against the Kings popish Army and Cavaliers but to expose themselves to their cruelties and rapines without the least resistance in word or deed Because this objection stickes most with many Schollars Statists and tender consciences I shall endeavour to give a satisfactory answer to it without any shifting evasions or questioning the truth of Tertullians and Cyprians assertions concerning the multitude and strength of the Christians and their ability to resist which some have taken great paines to refute First then I say that neither of all these Fathers say That the primitive Christians held it unlawfull muchlesse damnable in point of conscience for them to resist their persecuting enemies no such syllable in any of them And Tertullians Si non apud istam disciplinam MAGIS OCCIDI LICET QUAM OCCIDERE by way of necessary defence implies no such thing but rather proves the contrary that resistance is lawfull because it is lawfull to be slaine as a martyr therefore in this case to slay So as there is nothing in these authorities in point of conscience to condemne the Parliaments present resistance and defensive warre as unlawful Secondly they all seeme to grant that the Christians deemed resistance even by force of Armes to be lawfull for them though they used it not no Text of Scripture

both But this anointing in subiects can neither exempt their persons from necessary iust resistance if they unlawfully assault or war upon their Superiours equalls inferiours nor free them from arrests imprisonments arraignments deprivations or capitall censures if they offend and demerit them as we all know by Scripture and experience Therefore it can transfer no such corporall immunities or exemptions from all or any of these to kings but onely exempt them from unlawfull violence and injuries in point of right so far forth as it doth other Subjects In a word this annointing being common to all Christians can give no speciall Prerogative to Kings but onely such as are common to all Subiects as they are Christians Secondly admit it be mean● of an actuall externall anoynting yet that of it self affords Kings no greater priviledge then the inward unction of which it is a type neither can it priviledge them from just resistance or just corporall censures of all sorts First it cannot priviledge them from the iust assaults invasions resistance corporall punishments of other forraign kings Princes States Subiects not subordinate to them who upon any iust cause or quarrell may lawfully resist assault wound apprehend imprison slay depose iudge censure forraigne kings even to death as is apparent by S●hon King of the Amorites and Og the king of Bashan slain the King of Ai hanged by Ioshua the five kings of Canaan that besieged Gibeon on whose ne-ks Ioshua made his men of war to put their feet then smote slew and hanged them upon five trees Who also assaulted resisted imprisoned condemned slew executed divers other kings of Canaan to the number of thirty one in all by king Adonibezek Eglon Agag with other Heathen Kings imprisoned stabbed hewen in pieces by the Israelites If any obiect These kings were not actually annoynted which they cannot prove since Cyrus an Heathen King is stiled Gods annoynted no doubt Saul was an annoynted King if not the first in the world 1 Sam. 10. 1. yet he was justly resisted wounded pursued by the Philistines 1 Sam. 31. 3. Iosiah an annoynted good King was slain by Pharaoh Necho King of Egypt whom he rashly encountred King Ahab was slain by an Archer of the King of Assyria King Ioram and Ahaziah were both slain by Iehu by Gods command Iehoaaz was deposed by the King of Egypt Iehoiakim and Iehoiakin both deposed fettered and kept prisoners by the King of Babylon bylone who also y app●eherded d●posed judicially condemned King Zedechiah put out his eyes and sent him prisoner to B●hylon bound with fetters of brasse So Manasses was deposed bound with fetters of brasse and carryed captive by the Captaines of the King of Assyria Amaziah King of Iudah was taken prisoner by Iehoash King of Israel Infi●ite are the presidents in stories where kings of one Nation in just warrs have been assaulted invaded imprisoned deposed slain by Princes and Subjects of another Nation and that justly as all grant without exception neither their annointing nor Kingship being any exemption or priviledge to them at all in respect of forraigners in cases of hostility to whom they are no Soveraigns no more then to any of their Subjects Whereas if this royall annointing did make their persons absolutly sacred and inviolable no forraign Princes or Subjects could justly apprehend imprison smite wound slay depose or execute them Secondly Kings who are suborordinate Homagers and Subjects to other Kings or Emperours though annointed may for Treasons and Rebellions against them he lawfully resisted assaulted imprisoned deposed judged to death and executed because as to them they are but Subjects notwith●●anging their annointing as appears by sund●y presidents in our own and forraign Histories and is generally confessed by the learned Thirdly the Roman Greek and German Experours though annointed the ancient Kings of France Spain Arragon Britain Hungary Poland Denmarke Bohemia India Sparta and other places who were not absolute Monarchs have in former ages been lawfully resisted imprisoned deposed and some of them judicially adjudged to death and executed by their owne Senates Parliaments Diets States for their oppression mal-administration tyranny and that justly as Bodin Grotius with others affirm notwithstanding any pretence that they were annointed Soveraigns Fourthly Popes Bishops and Priests anciently were and at this present in the Romish Churches are actually annointed as well as Kings and we know the Popish Clergy and Canonists have frequently alledged this Text Touch not mine annointed and doe my Prophets no harme in Councels Decretalls and solem● debates in Parliament to prove their exemption from the arrests judgements capitall cens●res and proceedings of Kings and secular Iudges for any crimes whatsoever because forsooth they were Gods annointed intended in this Text not Kings therefore Kings and Seculars must not touch nor offer any the least violence to their persons no not in a way of justice By colour of this Text they exceedingly deluded the world in this particular for ●undreds of yeeres But in the seventh yeer of Hen. the 8. in Dr. Standish his case debated before a Committee of both Houses of Parliament and all the Iudges of England this Text being chiefly insisted on to prove the Clergies exemption Jure Divino was wholly exploded in England and since that in Germany France other Realms and notwithstanding its protection many Fopes Bishops and Clergy-men in all Kingdomes ages for all their annointing have for their misdemeanors not only been resisted apprehended imprisones but deprived degraded hanged quartered burned as well as other men Yea Abiathar the High Priest was deposed by S. ●omon for his Treason against him notwithstanding his Annointing their annointing giving them not the smallest immunity to doe ill or not to suffer all kinds of corporall capitall punishments for their misdemeanors If this actuall annointing then cannot lawfully exempt or secure Priests and Prelates persons nor the Pope himselfe from the premises how then can it justly priviledge the persons of Kings Fifthly among the Papists all infants either in their baptisme or confirmation are actually annointed with their consecrated Chrisme and with extream unction to boot at last cast which they make a Sacrament and so a thing of more divine soveraign Nature then the very annointing of Kings at their inauguration which they repute no Sacrament as being no where commanded by God But neither of these actuall unctions exempt all or any of those annointed with it from resistance or any corporall punishments or just censures of any king therefore the very annointing of Kings cannot doe it Sixthly the Ceremony of annointing kings as Cassanaeus with others write is peculiar onely to the German Emperor the King of Ierusalem the King of France the King of England and the King of Sicily but to no other kings else who are neither annointed nor crowned as he affirmes so that it cannot give any priviledge

my hand against my Lord for he is the Lords anoynted Moreover my father see yea see the skirt of thy Robe in my hand for in that I cut off the skirt of thy Robe and KILLED THHE NOT know then and see that there is neither evill nor transgression in mine hand and I have not sinned against thee yet then huntest my soul to take it The Lord judge between me thee and the Lord avenge me of thee but mine hand shall not be upon thee and plead my cause and deliver me out of thine hand And after this upon the second advantage he useth like words The Lord render to every man according to his right consnes faithfulnes for the Lord delivered thee into my hand to day but I would not stretch forth my hand against the Lords annointed And behold as THY LIFE WAS MVCH SET BY THIS DAY IN MY EYES so let my life be much set by in the eyes of the Lord and let him deliver me out of all tribulations Wherein David declared that God had given up Sauls life into his power that it was his owne meer goodnesse that moved him to spare Saul contrary to his Souldiers and Abishaies minds who would have slain him without any seruple of conscience that the reasons he spared him were First because he was Gods Annointed that is specially designed and made King of Israel by Gods own election which no kings at this day are so this reason extends not so fully to them as to Saul Secondly Because he was his Father and Lord too and so it would have been deemed some what an unnaturall act in him Thirdly because it had favoured onely of private self-revenge and ambitious aspiring to the Crown before due time which became not David the quarrell being then not publike but particular betwixt him and David onely who was next to succeed him after his death Fourthly because by this his lenity he would convince reclaim Saul frō his bloody pursuit and cleare his innocency to the world Fifthly to evidence his dependence upon God and his speciall promise that he should enjoy the Crown after Saul by divine appointment and therefore he would not seem to usurp it by taking Saul life violently away Most of which consideration faile in cases of publike defence and the present controversie Thirdly that Saul himselfe as well as Davids Souldiers conceived that David might with safe conscience have slain as well as spared him witnesse his words 1. Sam. 24. 17 18 19 Thou art more righteous then I for thou hast rewarded me good where as I have rewarded thee evill And thou hast shewedme this day how thou hast deals well with me for asmuch as when the Lord had delivered me into thine hand THOU KILLEDST ME NOT. For if a man finde his enemy WIL HE LET HIM GO WEL AWAY Wherefore the Lord reward three good for that thou hast done unto me this day c. And in 1. Sam. 26. 21. Then said Saul I have sinned returne my sonne David for I will no more do thee harm because my solve was precious in thine eyes this day behold I have played the fool exceedingly c. But the former answers are so satisfactory that I shall not pray in ayd from these much lesse from that evasion of Dr. Fern who makes this and all other Davids demeanors in standing out against Saul EXTRAORDINARY for he was annointed and designed by the Lord to succeed Saul and therefore he might also use all extraordinary wayes of safe guarding his persons which like wise insinua●es that this his scruple of conseience in sparing Sauls life was but extraordinary the rather because all his Souldiers and Abishai would have slain Saul without any such scruple and Saul himselfe conceived that any man else but David would have done it and so by consequence affirms that this his sparing of Saul is no wayes obligatory to other subjects but that they may lawfully in Davids case kill their Soveraigns But Davids resistauce of Saul by a guard of men being only that ordinary way which all subjects in all ages have used in such cases and that which nature teacheth not onely men but all living creatures generally to use for their own defence and this evasion derogating exceedingly from the personall safety of Princes yea and exposing them to such perils as they have cause to con the Dr. small thanks for such a bad invention I shall reject it as the extraordinary fansie of the Dr. other loyalists void both of truth and loyalty The 7. Objection out of the Old Testament is this 1. Sam. 8. 11. Samuel tells the people how they should be oppressed under kings yet all that violence and injustice that should be done unto them is no just cause of resistance for they have NO REMEDY LEFT THEM BVT CRYING TO THE LORD v. 18. And ye shall cry out in that day because of the King which ye shall have chosen you and the Lord will not hear you in that day To this I answer 1. that by the Doctors own confession this text of Samuel much urged by some of his fellows to prove an absolute divine Prerogative in Kings is quite contrary to their suggestion and meant onely of the oppression violence and inju● not lawfull power of Kings which should cause them thus to cry out to God This truth we have clearly gained by this objection for which some Royallists will renounce their champion 2. It is but a meer fallacie and absurdity not warranted by the Text which saith not that they shall onely cry out or that they shall use no remedy or resistance but crying out which had been materiall but ba●ely ye shall cry out in that day c. Ergo they must and should onely crie out and not resist at all is a grosse Non-sequitur which Argument because much cryed up I shall demonstrate the palpable absurdity of it by many parrallell instance First Every Christian is bound to pray for Kings and Magistrates 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. Ergo they must onely pray and not fight for them nor yeeld tribute or obedience to them Kings and their Subjects too are bound to crie out and pray to God against forraign enemies that come to war against them as Moses did against Pharaoh and his Host David against his enemies Hezekiah against Sennacherib and his Hoste Asa against his enemies Abijah and the men of Iudah against Ieroboam and the Israelites their enemies and as all Christians usually do against their enemies Yea I make no doubt but the Doctor and other Court-Chaplains inform his Majesty and the Cavalleers that they must cry to God against the Parliamenteers and Round heads now in Arms to resist them Ergo they must onely pray but in no wise resist or fight against them All men must pray to God for their daily bread Ergo they must onely pray and not labour for it Sick persons