Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	david_n	king_n	saul_n	5,115	5	10.1244	5	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

Theology which others have wholly omitted may seasonably be here supplyed to satisfie Consciences yet unresolved of the justnesse of the present and all other necessary Defensive Warres I shall not over-sparingly or cursorily passe through it without a competent debate Now lest the Consciences of any should bee seduced ensnared with generalities or cleere mistakes through the mis-stating of the points in question with which devise many have beene hitherto deluded by the Opposites who cumbate onely with their owne mishapen fancies discharging all their Gunshot against such Tenets as are not in question and no waies comming neere the White in Controversie I shal for my own orderly proceeding and the better satisfaction of ignorant scrupulous seduced consciences more punctually state the Question then formerly in the Legall Part first Negatively next Positively and then proceede to its debate Take notice therefore First that this is no part of the question in dispute Whether the Parliament or any Subjects who soever may actually disobey or violently with force of Armes resist the Kings or any other lawfull Magistrates just commands warranted either by Gods Word or the Lawes of England it being out of controversie readily subscribed by all of both sides that Such commands ought not so much as to be disobeyed much lesse forcibly resisted but cheerefully submitted to and readily executed for Conscience sake Rom. 13. 1. to 6. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. Tit. 3. 1. Hebr. 13. 17. Iosh 1. 16 17. 18. Ezra 7. 26. Eccles 8 2 3 4 5. the onely thing these objected Scriptures prove which come not neere the thing in question though our Opposites most rely upon them Secondly Neither is this any branch of the dispute Whether Subjects may lawfully rise up or rebell against their Prince by way of Muteny Faction or Sedition without any just or lawfull publicke ground or for every trifling injury or provocation offered them by their Prince Or whether private men for personall wrongs especially where their lives chastities livelihoods are not immediatly endangered by actuall violent unjust assaults may in point of Conscience lawfully resist or rise up against their Kings or any other lawfull Magistrates Since all disavow such tumultuous Insurrections and Rebellions in such cases yet this is all which the oft objected Examples of Korah Dathan and Abiram with other Scriptures of this Nature doe or can evince Thirdly nor is this any parcell of the Controversie Whether Subjects may lay violent hands upon the persons of their Princes wittingly or willingly to deprive them of their Lives or Liberties especially for private Injuries or in cold blood when they doe not actually nor personally assault their lives or chastities or for any publike misdemeanours without a precedent sentence of Imprisonment or death against them given judicially by the whole States or Realmes where they have such Authority to araigne and judge them For all unanimously disclaime yea abominate such Traitorous practises and Iesuiticall Positions as execrable and unchristian yet this is all which the example of Davids not offering violence to King Saul the 1 Sam. 24. 3. to 22. cap. 26. 2. to 25. 2 Sam. 1. 2. to 17. or that perverted Text of Psal 105. 15. the best Artillery in our Adversaries Magazines truely prove Fourthly Neither is this the thing in difference as most mistake it Whether the Parliament may lawfully raise an Army to goe immediately and directly against the very person of the King to apprehend or offer violence to him much lesse intentionally to destroy him or to resist his owne personall attempts against them even to the hazard of his life For the Parliament and their Army too have in sundry Remonstrances Declarations Protestations and Petitions renounced any such disloyall intention or designe at all for which there is no colour to charge them and were his Majestie now alone or attended onely with his Ordinary Courtly Guard there needed no Army nor Forces to resist his personall assaults Yet this is made the principall matter in question by Doctor Ferne by An appeale to thy Conscience and other Anti-parliamentary Pamphlets who make this the sole Theame of their Discourses That Subjects may not take up Armes Against their Lawfull Soveraigne because he is wicked and unjust no though he be an Idolater and Oppressor That Suppose the King will not discharge his trust but is bent or seduced to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties yet Subjects may not take up Armes and resist the King it being unwarrantable and according to the Apostle damnable Rom. 13. Yea this is all the questions the G. valleers and Malignants demand of their Opposites in this cause What will you take up Armes will you fight against or resist the King c. Never stating the question of his Forces his Army of Papists Malignants Delinquents but onely of the King himselfe abstracted from his invading depopulating Forces against whom in this sence of theirs the Parliament never yet raised any Forces nor made the least resistance hitherto These foure particulars then being not in question I shall here appeale to the most Malignant Conscience Whether Doctor Ferne and all other our Opposites pretenders of Conscience haue not ignorantly if not maliciously made shipwracke of their good Consciences had they ever any by a wilfull mistating of the Controversie concerning the present Defensive Warre in the foure preceding particulars which they make the onely Questions when not so much as one of them comes within the Verge of that which is the reall Controversie and never once naming that in all or any of their Writings which is the point indeed Secondly Whether there bee any one Text or Reason in all their Pamphlets particularly applied to any thing which concernes the present Warre but onely to these foure particulars which are not in debate And if so as no Conscience can gaine-say it then there is nought in all the wast Papers they have published which may either resolve or scruple any Conscience That the Parliaments Defensive Armes and resistance are unlawfull in point of Divinity or Conscience which is steered by the Scriptures Compasse But if these particulars be not in question you may now demand what the knot and true state of the present Controversie in point of Conscience is In few words take it thus Whether both Houses of Parliament and the Subjects by their Authority for the preservation of their owne Persons Priviledges Lawes Lives Liberties Estates Religion the apprehension of Voted co●tumatious Traitors and Delinquents the rescuing his seduced Majestie out of the power of Popish pernicious Counsellours and Forces who end avour the Kingdomes subversion by withdrawing him from and incensing him against his Parliament may not lawfully with a good Conscience take up necessary defensive Armes and make actuall Warlike resistance against his Majesties Malignant ill Counsellors and invading Popish Forces who now Murther Rob Spoile Sacke Depopulate the Kingdome in a most Hostile manner to set up Tyranny Popery and an

Moah which he subdued and procured rest to his Country 40. yeeres God his Spirit Word approving this his action Fifthly by the example of Barack and Deborah Iudges ch 4. and 5. Where God selling the children of Israel for their sinnes into the hand of Iabin King of Cannan and his Captaine Sisera for 20. yeeres space during which he mightily oppressed them hereupon Barack at the instigation of the Prophetesse Deborah by the command of the Lord God of Israel gathered an Army of ten thousand men which Sisera and the King of Canaan hearing of assembled all their Chariots and Army together at the River of Kishon where the Lord discomfited Sisera and all his Host with the edge of the sword before Barack his Army and subdued Iabin the King of Canaan before the children of Israel which warre is by a speciall Song of Deborah and Barack highly extolled and God in it as most just and honorable and this curse denounced against those that refused to assist in it Iudges 4. 23. Curse ye Meroz saith the Angel of the Lord curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof because they come not out to the helpe of the Lord to the helpe of the Lord against the mighty with this Corolary so that thine enemies parish O Lord but let them that love thee be as the sunne when it goeth forth in his might What more can conscience desire to justifie the lawfulnesse of a just defensive warre Sixthly by the Example of Gideon and the Israelites Iudges c. 6. Who being delivered by God into the hands of the Prince of Midian for seven years Gideon by speciall incouragement and direction from God himselfe with a poore despicable Army of 300. men defeated the great Hoast of the Midianites and tooke and slew their Princes By these 4 last pregnant presidents it is most evident that a forraigne King who hath gained a Title onely by conquest though with divine concurrence by way of punishment for that peoples sinne may lawfully be resisted repulsed even after some yeares forced subjection and submission to him by the people conquered to regaine their former liberties Seventhly by the precedent of Abimelech King of Shechem who being elected King by the voluntary assents of the people God afterwards sending an evill spirit of division between Abimelech and the men of Shechem thereupon they revolted from him and chusing Gael for their Captaine fortified the City against him and when Abimelech came with an Army to take in the Towne they in their defence went forth and fought with him resisted his seige and they of the Tower of Shechem standing upon their guard refused to surrender it after the Towne was surprised and so were burnt After which comming too neare the wals at the Tower of Thebez assaulted by Abimelech he had his braines and head so bruised with the peece of a milstone cast downe upon him by a woman that he called hastily to his Armour-bearer and said unto him draw thy sword and slay me that men say not of me a woman slew him whereupon he thrust him through that he dyed and so every man departed to his place Thus God rendred the wickednesse of Abimelech and all the evill of the men of Shechem upon their own heads Iudges 9. So the Text. Eightly by the example of Iepthah who after that God had sold the Israelites for their Idolatry into the hands of the children of Ammon 18. yeeres space Iepthah being made head and Captaine by the Elders and people of Gilead first argued the case with the King of Ammon touching the unjustnesse of his warre upon them desiring God to be Iudge betweene them and then by Gods assistance smote and subdued the Ammonites and their Cities Judg. c. 11. And so cast off their yoake Ninthly By the practise of Sampson who after God had delivered the Isra●lities into the hands of the Philistimes who ruled over them forty yeares space did by Gods extraordinary assistance oft encounter slay and resist the Philistimes rescuing the oppressed Israelites from their vassalage and at his death slew more of them then in his life Iudg. c. 13. to 17. which deliverance was afterwards perfected by Samuel 1 Sam. 7. and approved nay wrought by God Tenthly by the Example of David who being persecuted by fedifragous dissembling King Saul his father-in-law a notable patterne of the inconstancie and invaliditie of Kings solemnest oathes and Protestations who contrary to many solemne vowes and feighned reconciliations sought unjustly to deprive him of his life thereupon David retired from the Court entertained a guard of foure hundred men and became a Captaine over them 1 Sam. 22. 2. After which Abiather escaping to him from Nob when the Priests there were slaine by Doeg upon Saules command for Davids sake David used these words to him Abide thou with me feare not for ●e that seeketh thy life seeketh my life but with me thou shalt be in safeguard 1 Sam. 22. 23. Soone after the Philistimes beseiging Keilah David by Gods encouragement smote them and saved Keilah intending there to secure himselfe and his men which Saul hearing of said God hath delivered him into my hands for he is shut in by entring into a Towne which hath gates and barres whereupon he called all the people together to beseige David and his men which he needed not doe did he or any else beleeve that they would not ought not to have made any forcible resistance David informed hereof enquired seriously of God whether Saul would certainely come downe and demanded twice of him will the men of Keila deliver me and my men up into his hand And the Lord said they will deliver thee up Had not David and his men resolved to fortifie and defend themselves there if the men of Keilah would have beene faithfull to them and beleeved they might have resisted Saul with his Forces certainely he would never have presumed to aske such a question twice together of God himselfe to receive his resolution therein neither would God have vouchased an answere thereto but his double inquirie and Gods resolution infallibly demonstrate his intention to resist and the lawfulnes of his defensive resistance would the Keilites have adhered to him This the very next words fully cleare 1 Sam. 23. 13. Then David and his men about six hundred arose and departed out of Keilah and went wheresoever they could goe and it was told Saul the David was escaped from Keilah Gods prediction of the Keilites treachery was the onely cause of their departure thence where they had resolved to defend themselves of which hope being disappointed beyond expectation they want whither soever they could goe After which David and his men being but few in number not able in humane probability without tempting God to encounter Sauls great Forces retired themselves into woods mountaines rocks strong holds wildernesses where Saul pursuing them they still declined him but had he and his army ever assaulted

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

must pray to God to restore their health Ergo they must take no Physick but onely pray All men are expresly commanded to crie and call upon God in the day of trouble Ergo they must use no meanes but prayer to free themselves from trouble pretty Logick Reason Divinity fitter for derision then any serious Answer This is all this Text concludes and that grosly mistaken Speech of Saint Ambrose Christians weapons are Prayers and Tears of which anon i● its due place In one word prayer no more excludes resistance then resistance prayer both of them may and sometimes when defence is necessary as now ought to concurre so that our Court Doctors may as well argue as some Prelates not long since did in word and deed Ministers ought to pray and Gods House is an Oratory for prayer Ergo they must not Preach atleast ●ery seldom or make his House an Auditory for Preaching Or as rationally reason from this Text That Subjects must cry out to God against their kings oppressions Ergo they must not petition their Kings much lesse complain to their Parliament for relief as conclude from thence Ergo they may in no case resist the king or his invading Forces though they indeavour to subvert Religion Laws Liberties as the Doctor himself states the controversie whose arguments will hardly satisfie conscience being so voyd of reason sence yea science The eighth is this None of the Prophets in the old Testament reprehending the Kings of Israel and Iudeh for their grosse Iaolatry cruelty oppression did call upon the Elder of the people for the duty of resistance neither do we finde the people resisting or taking up Arms against any of their kings no not against Ahab or Manasseh upon any of these grounds Ergo resistance is unlawfull To which I must reply first That none of the Prophets did ever forbid resistance in such cases under pain of Damnation as our new Doctors do now Ergo it was lawfull because not prohibited Secondly that as none of the people were then inhibited to resist so not dehorted from it therefore they might freely have done it had they had hearts and zeal to do it Thirdly Iosephus resolves expresly That by the very Law of God Deuter. 17. If the King did contrary to that Law multiply silver gold and horses to himself more then was fitting the-Israelites might lawfully resist him and were bound to do it to preserve themselves from Tyrannie Therefore no doubt they might have lawfully resisted their Kings Idolatry cruelty oppressions Fourthly Hulderichus Zuinglius a famous Protestant Divine with others positively affirms That the Israelites might not onely lawfully resist but likewise depose● he●r Kings for their wickednesses and Idolatries yea That all the people were justly punished by God because they removed not their flagitious idolatrous Kings and Princes out of their places which he proves by Ierem 15. where after the four Plagues there recited the Prophet subjoynes the cause of them saying Verse 4. I will give them in fury to all the Kingdoms of the Earth that is I will stirre up in fury all the kings of the earth against them because of Manasseh the son of Hezekiah king of Iudah for that which he did in Ierusalem This Manasseh had committed many wickednesses by Idolatrie and the stedding of innocent blood as we may see in the one and twentieth Chapter of the second of the Kings for which evills the Lord grievously punished the people of Israel Manasseh shed overmuch innocent blood untill he had filled Ierusalem even to the mouth with his sins wherewith he made Iudah to sinne that it might do evill before the Lord Therefore because Manasseh King of Iudah did these most vile abominations above all that the Amorites had done before him and made the Land of Iudah to sin in his undeanesse therefore thus saith the Lord God of Israel Behold I will bring evill upon Ierusalem and Iudah that whosever shall hear both his ears shall tingle c. In summe if the Iews had not thus permitted their King to be wicked WITHOVT PVNISMENT they had not been so griev●●nsly punished by God We ought to pull and crost away even our eye that offends so a hand and foot c. If the Israelites had thus DE OSED Manassch by consent and suffrages of all or the greatest part of the multitude they had not been so grievessly punished of God So Zuinglius with whom even B. Rilson himself in some sort accords who in de ending interpreting his opinion c●ntesseth That it is a question among the Learned What Soveraignty the whole people of Israel had over their Kings confessing that the peoples resouing Ionathan that he died not when Saul would have put him to d●●th Davids speech to the peo●le when he purposed to reduce the Arke all the Congregations speech and carriage toward Rehoboam when they came to make him King with the p●ople speech to Ieremy Thou shalt die the death have perswaded some and might lead Zuingli●s to think that the people of Israel notwithstanding they called for a King yet RE●ERVED TO THEMSELVES SVFFICIENT AVTHORITY TO OVERRVLE THEIR KING IN THOSE THINGS WHICH SEEMED EXPEDIENT AND NEEDFVLL FOR THE PVBLIKE WLLFARE else God would not punish the people for the kings iniquity which they must suffer and not redresse Which opinion if as Orthodox as these learned Divines and Iosephus averre it not onely quite ruines our Opposites Argument but their whole Treatises and cause at once But fiftly I answer that subjects not onely by command of Gods Prophets but of God himself and by his speciall approbation have taken up Arms against their Idolatrous Princes to ruine them and their Posterities A truth so apparent in Scripture that I wonder our purblinde Doctors discern it not For did not God himself notwithstanding his frequent conditionall Promises to establish the Kingdom of Israel on David Solomon and their Posterity for Solomons grosse Idolatry occasioned by his Wives tell Solomon in expresse terms VVherefore for as much as this is done of thee and thou hast not kept my Covenant and my Statutes which I have commanded thee I will surely REND THE KINGDOM FROM THEE and will give it to thy servant Notwithstanding in thy dayes I will not do it for David thy fathers sake but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son Did not the Prophet Abijah in pursuance hereof rending Ierohoams garment into twelve pieces tell him Thus saith the Lord the God of Israel behold I will rend the Kingdom out of the hand of Solomon and will give ten tribes to thee And I will take the Kingdom out of his sons hand and will give it unto thee even ten Tribes and I will take thee and thou shalt reign according to all that thy soul desireth and shalt be King over Israel and I will for this afflict the Seed of David y Yea

Texts authorising men not onely to resist but warre against yea slay their malicious open enemies untill they be sub●ued or destroyed Exod. 23. 22. 27. Levi. 26. 7. 8. Num. 24. 8. Deut. 20. throughout Iosh c 8. to c. 13. 2 Sam. 22. 38. to 42. 1 Chron. 17. 8. 10. Esth 9. 5. Neither doe the Texts of Mat. 5 39. Luk. 6. 29. But I say unto you that ye resist not evill but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek● turne to him the other also and him that taketh away thy cloake forbid not to take thy c●ate also prohibit all actuall resistance of publick violence offered by enemies to our persons goods or lawfull defensive warres which precept as is cleare by the context and resolved by Augustine Gratian Alensis and f others extends onely to some private injuries and revenges and to the inward patient preparation of the mind to suffer two injuries rather thē maliciously to revenge a single one especially in cases where we want ability to resist not to an actuall bearing of all grosse outward injuries to our persons or estates without resistance which precept being given generally to all Christians to Kings and Magistrates as well as Subjects if it be strictly urged prohibits Kings and Magistrates to resist the violence and injuries of the people as much as the people not to repulse the Armes violence and oppressions of their Princes and Governours and that Text of Iames 5. 6. Ye have condemned and killed the just and he doth not resist you which some thinke is meant of Christ alone proves onely that some just men and many Martyrs have beene condemned and killed without resistance as our Saviour was not that it is unlawfull to resist an open enemy theefe or murtherer who comes to kill rob or plunder us against Law and Conscience I read of Saint Andrew that when the people can together in multitudes to rescue him out of the hands of a wicked man and defend him from the injury of death he teaching them both by word and exemple exhorted them not to hinder his martyrdome yet the people lawfully rescued innocent Ionathan from that unjust death which his Father King Saul twice vowed hee should undergoe Some mens patient suffering death and injuries without resistance is no better an argument that all therefore must so suffer without opposition then that all men ought to yeeld their purses up to high-way theeves or their persons goods ships to Turkes and Pyrates without fight or resistance because some yea many have shamefully done it for want of courage when they were able to resist and so have deservedly lost their purses shippes goods liberties and become Turkish Gally-slaves to the ruine of their estates bodies soules which miseries by a manfull just defence they might have easily prevented All which considered I see no ground in Scripture nor reason but that temporall enemies of all kindes which wrongfully invade our persons or estates by open force of Armes in a warlike manner may be resisted with temporall weapons as well as spirituall enemies with spirituall Armes Eighthly That which all Nations in all ages by the very light of nature have constantly practised as just and lawfull must doubtlesse be lawfull in point of conscience if there be no Law of God to the contrary But selfe-defence against invading Tyrants and their instruments hath by the very light of Nature beene constantly practised by all Nations in all ages as just and lawfull which the premises the Appendix the Histories of all ages evidence theire being never any one Nation or Kingdome for ought I finde that ever yet reputed it a thing unlawfull in point of Conscience to resist the open malicious destructive tyranny violence hostility of their unnaturall Princes or that desisted from any such resistance giving themselves up willingly to their outragious lusts and butcheries without any opposition though some private men and Martyres have sometimes done it upon particular reasons as to avoid the scandall of Religion to beare witnesse to the truth for the confirmation and conversion of others or for want of power or oportunity to resist or to avoyd a generall massacre of their fellow Christians or because they were onely a few private men and their religion directly opposite to the Lawes and government under which they lived or the like not because they judged all resistance simply unlawfull as blinde Doctors falsey informe us which I shall prove hereafter and there is no Law of God at all to prohibite such resistance therefore doubtlesse it must be lawfull even in point of conscience Ninthly that which is directly opposite to what is absolutely illegall and unjust in point of conscience and the chiefe law full obstacle and remedy to prevent or redresse it must certainely be just be lawfull in the court of Conscience since that which is directly opposite to that which is simply ill and unjust must necessarily be good and just But necessary just defence by force of Armes is directly opposite to that open Armed violence and tyranny which is absolutely illegall and unjust in point of Conscience and the chiefe lawfull remedy and obstacle to prevent or redresse it as reason experience and the premises evidence Therefore it must necessarily be just and lawfull even in the Court of Conscience Tenthly That resistance which doth neither oppose the Kings royal person nor lawfull Authority must certainely be lawfull in point of conscience But the resistance of the Kings Forces not accompanied with his person in the execution of his unjust commands is neither a resistance of his Royall person for that is absent and his Cavalliers I hope are no Kings nor yet invested with the priviledges of Kings nor yet of his lawfull Authority his illegall Commissions and Commands being meere nullities in Law transferring no particle of his just Authority to those who execute them Therefore it must certainely be lawfull in point of conscience Eleventhly That resistance which is the onely remedy to keepe not onely Kings themselves but every one of their Officers and Souldiers from being absolute Tyrants Monarchs and the denyall whereof equalizeth every souldier and particular Officer to Kings yea God himselfe whose prerogative only it is to have an absolute unresistable wil must doubtlesse be lawful in the Court of Conscience But this necessary defensive resistance now used by the Parliament and Subjects in such For if they may not resist any of the Kings Officers or Souldiers in their plunderings rapines fierings sackings of Townes beating wounding murthering the Kings leige people and the like will not every common Souldier and Officers be an absolute Tyran equall in Monarchie to the great Turke himself and paramount the King who hath no absolute irresistable Soveraignety in these particulars Either therefore this resistance must be granted not onely as lawfull but simply necessary else every officer and common Souldier wi●l be more than an absolute

Arbitrary lawlesse Government in case they come armed with his personall presence or commission to execute these their wicked illegall designes Especially when neither the Parliament nor their forces in this their resistance have the least thought at all to offer any violence to the Kings owne person or to oppose his Legall iust Soveraigne Authority Or shorter Whether the Kings Captaines and Souldiers invading the Parliament and Subiects as aforesaid the Parliament or Subjects especially when authorized by an Ordinance of both Houses may not with a safe Conscience forcibly resist these Malignants though armed with the Kings illegall Commissions without his personall presence or with his presence and Commissions too And for my part I thinke it most evident that they may lawfully resist repulse them even by Divine Authority For the better clearing whereof I shall premise these three undeniable Conclusions First That no lawfull King or Monarch whatsoever much lesse the Kings of England who are no absolute Princes have any the least Authority from the Lawes of God or man personally by themselves or instruments to doe any injurie or iniustice to their Subiects how much lesse then by open Force to Murther Rob Plunder Ravish Ruine or Spoile them of their Lawes Liberties Estates Religion all which is plentifully proved by Law Authorities in the premises and punctually confirmed by these ensuing Texts Ezech. 44 15 16 17. cap. 45. 8 9. Psalm 105. 14. 15. Isay 14. 15. to 23. 2 Sam 23. 3. Isay 1. 23. cap. 3. 12. 14. 15. Prov. 28. 15. 16. Ezech. 22. 6. 7. 27. Zeph. 3. 3. Mich. 3. 1. to 12. 1 Sam. 12. 3. 4. 5. 1 King cap. 21. 22. Zeph. 2. 8. Isay 9. 7. cap. 16. 5. cap. 32. 1. 2. cap. 49. 23. 2 Chron. 9. 8. Ier. 22. 3. to 32. Obad. 2. 10. to 16. Rom. 13. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1 Pet. 2. 13. 16. and infinite Scriptures more Secondly That all Subiects and persons whatsoever are obliged both in point of Law and Conscience to disobey resist and not execute the uniust illegall Commissions Mandates of their Kings and other Magistrates This is evident by the Midwi●es refusall to murther the Hebrewes Male-children at King Pharoabs command for which God blessed them and built them houses Exod 1. 15. to 20. By Balaams deniall to curse or defie the Israelites at King Balacks intreaty Numb 22. 23. 24. By the refusall of Sauls Guard and Footmen to slay or fall on the Priests a Nob by King Sauls personall command though present and not onely their King but Master too 1 Sam. ●2 17. 18. By Ionathans denyall to kill or consent to the death of David upon Sauls mandate though not onely his Soveraigne but Father although he might have gained the Crowne by it and indangered his owne life by refusing it 1 Sam. 20. 27. to 42. By Sauls Armour-beares forbearance to runne him thorow with his Sword when he fled before the Philistimes though he as his King and Master enioyned him to doe it lest the uncircumcised should come and thrust him through and abuse him 1 Sam. 3● 4. By Mordechai his denyall to bend the knee to Haman the great Favourite though the King had so commanded Esther 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. By Shadrac● Meshach Abodnego and Daniels refusall to eat of the Kings portion of meat and wine assigne● them least they should be desiled Dan. 1. 5. to 12. By their peremptory resolution not To fall downe and worship King Nebuchadnezzars golden Image though twice strictly commanded by the King to doe it and threatned to be cast into the fiery Furance as they were for refusing it Dan. 3. 4 to 30. By Daniels disobeying the Kings and Lords Jdolatrous Decree not to offer a Petition to any God or man for 30. dayes save of King Darius under paine of being cast into the Lyons Denne Dan. 6. 5. to 24. By the Pharises and chiefe Priests Officers neglect to apprehend our Saviour for his Preaching though enjoyned so to doe by their Masters Iohn 7. 32. to 48. By the Apostles refusall to give over Preaching and perseverance in Preaching notwithstanding the High Priests and Councels expresse Inhibitions and doubled Commands seconded with Apprehensions Imprisonments Scourgings and their direct resolutions in this very case That we ought to obey God rather then men Acts 4. 12. to 22 cap. 5. 17. to the end By Peters Preaching to and conversing with the Vncircumcised Gentiles notwithstanding the Christian Iewes dislike Acts 11. 1. to 19. with infinite Presidents of this nature in Ecclesiasticall Histories the very sufferings of all the Martyrs depending on this ground alone which is backed by Matth. 10. 28. 32. 33. Luc. 12. 4. 8. cap. 9. 23. 24. 25. 26. Ezech. 2. 3. to 9. Rev. 13. 3. to the end Rom. 12 1. 2. John 16. 2. 3. 1 Thess 2 14. 15. 16. Exod. 32. 2. Josh 24 15. Psalm 44. 15. to 23. Thirdly That as all Kings illegall unjust commands are void in Law and will no waies extenuate the guilt or justifie the actions of those instruments who execute them in point of Law as I havef formerly cleared so are they likewise meer nullities and insufficient to excuse the executioners of them in point of Conscience as is evident by Psal 52. 5. where God threatens to destroy Doeg the Edomite for ever to take him away plucke him out of his dwelling place and root him out of the land of the Living for executing King Sauls bloody command upon the Priests at Nob 1 Sam. 22. By Gods exemplary punishment upon those Souldiers who by King Nebuchadnezzars speciall command bound the three Children and cast them into the firy Furnace who were slaine by the flames of the Furna●e though these three Martyrs had no harme in the Furnace it selfe Dan. 3. 20. to 28. By Gods consuming the two Captaines and their fifties with fire from heaven who came violently to apprehend the Prophet Elijab by King Ahaziah his commission and unjust command 2 King 1. 9 to 16. By the Precept of Iohn Baptist given to Souldiers themselves Luke 3. 14. Doe violence to no man neither by the Kings nor Generalls Command neither accuse any falsely By 1 Tim. 5. 22. Lay hands sodainly on no man no more in a violent Military then an Ecclesiasticall sense neither be partakers of other mens sinne● Compared with the next forecited Scriptures with Rom. 1. 32. Math. 15. 14. Psal 50. 18 21. Prov. 1. 10. to 16. Oba● vers 10. to 16 Isay 1. 23. with Isay 9 16. The leaders of this people cause them to erre and those th●t are led of them are destroyed What therefore Saint Iohn writes in another case 2 Iohn 10. 11. If there come any unto you be he an Archbishop Bishop Archdeadon Ferne himselfe or any Court Chaplaine whatsoever and being not this Doctrine receive him not into your house neither bid him God speed for he that biddeth him God speed Is partaker of his

and fought many battles with good successe against the severall kings who invaded and layd claime to their Country as you may reade at large in the bookes of Maccabees All these examples most of them mannaged by the most pious religious persons of those dayes prescribed and assisted by God himselfe whose Spirit specially encouraged strengthned the hands and Spirits of the undertakers of them as Osiander well observes and therefore cannot be condemned as unjust without blasphemy and impiety in my opinion are a most cleare demonstration of the lawfulnesse of a defensive warre in point of Divinity and Conscience against Kings and their Armies who wrongfully invade or assault their Subjects though themselves be personally present in their armies to countenance their unlawfull warres and likewise evidence that a Royall title gotten forcibly by conquest onely though continued sundry yeares is not so valid in point of conscience but that it may be safely questioned yea rejected there being no true lawfull Title of Soveraignety over any people but that which originally depends upon their owne free election and unconstrained subjection simply considered or which is subsequently seconded therewith after a possession got by force or conquest Now that the kings personall presence cannot justifie the unjust actions or protect the persons of those that assist him in any unlawfull action contrary to the Lawes of God or the Realme is a truth so evident that it needes no proofe it being no part of the kings Royall prerogative or Office but diametrally repugnant to it either to doe injury himselfe or to authorize or protect others in committing it as I have elsewhere proved at large Therefore it can administer no patronage nor defence at all to those who accompany his person in the unjust invasions of his Subjects nor dis-able them to defend or repulse their unjust assaults and rapines For suppose a King should so farre degenerate and dishonour himselfe as personally to accompany a packe of theeves who should rob his subjects on the high way break up their houses in the night or practise Piracie on the Sea or commit Rapes or murthers on his people every where I thinke no man so voyd of Reason Law Conscience but would readily grant that the Subjects in all these cases might lawfully defend themselves by force against these Robbers Theeves Murtherers notwithstanding the Kings presence or association with them whose personall Prerogatives and immunity from assaults or violence being incommunicable underivable to any other and peculiar to himselfe alone he can transfere no such protection to others who accompany him in their injurious practises and that these Acts of theirs are direct fellonie and murther for which they might be justly apprehended condemned executed though thus countenanced by the Kings owne presence And if this be truth as our Law-bookes resolve and the Scripture to in places forecited the kings presence can no more deprive the subjects of their necessary just defence against his Popish Forces assaults nor justifie their proceedings or the present unjust offensive warre then in the former cases there being the selfe-same reason in both warres being in truth but greater and more detestable Murders and Robberies when they are unjust as Cyprian Augustine with others rightly define Thirdly personall unjust assaults and violence even of Kings themselves may in some cases lawfully be resisted by subjects This Doctor Ferne himselfe acknowledgeth Sect. 2. p. 9. Personall defence is lawfull against the sudden much more then against the premeditated and illegall assaults of such Messengers of the King yea OF THE PRINCE HIMSELFE THVS FARRE to ward his blowes to hold his hands and the like not to endanger his person not to returne blowes no for though it be naturall to defend a mans selfe yet the whole common-wealth is concerned in his person the king therefore himselfe much more in his Cavalliers may thus farre at least safely be resisted in point of conscience And that he may be so indeed is manifest by two pregant Scripture examples The first is that of King Saul 1 Sam 14. 38. to 46. where Ionathan and his Armour-bearer routing the Philistimes whole Army violated his Father Sauls command of which he was wholy ignorant in taking a little honey one the end of his sticke in the pursuite hereupon king Saul most rashly and unjustly vowed twice one after another to put him to death whereupon the people much discontented with this injustice were so farre from submitting to the Kings pleasure in it that they presently said to the king shall Jonathan dye who hath wrought so great Salvation in Israel God forbid As the Lord liveth there shall not one haire of his head fall to the ground So the people RESCVED JONATHAN that he dyed not though he were not onely King Sauls Subject but Sonne too Indeede it appeares not in the Text that Saul offered any violence to Ionathans person or the people to Sauls and it may be the peoples peremptory vow and unanimous resolution to defend Jonathan from this unjust sentence of death against him made Saul desist from his vowed bloody intendment but the word rescued with other circumstances in the story seeme to intimate that Ionathan was in hold to be put to death and that the people forcibly rescued him out of the executioners hands However certainely their vow and speeches declare that if Saul himselfe or any other by his commanded had assaulted Ionathan to take away his life they would have forcibly resisted them and preserved his life though with losse of their owne beleeving they might lawfully doe it else they would not have made this resolute vow nor could they have performed it had Saul wilfully proceeded but by a forcible rescue and resistance of his personall violence The other is that of king Vzziah 2 Chron. 27. 16. to 22. who presumptuously going into the Temple against Gods Law to burne incense on the Altar Azariah the high Priest and with him fourescore Priests of the Lord that were valiant men went in after him and WITHSTOOD or resisted Vzziah the king and said unto him It appertaineth not unto thee Vzziah to burne incense unto the Lord but to the Priests the sonnes of Aaron that are consecrated to burne insence go out of the Sanctuary for thou hast trespassed neither shall i● be for thine honour from the Lord God Then Vzziah was wroth and had a censor in his hand to burne incense and whiles he was wroth with the Priests the Leprosie rose up in his forehead And Azariah and all the Priests looked upon him and behold he was Leprous in his forehead AND THEY THRVST HIM OVT FROM THENCE yea himselfe hasted also to goe out because the Lord had smitten him If then these Priests thus actually resisted King Vzziah in this sinfull Act thrusting him perforce out of the Temple when he would but offer incense much more might they would they have done it had he violently assaulted their

away his life And iffo then the Kings Cut-throat Cavalleers by his own confession may lawfully be resisted repulsed slain in a defensive way by the Parliaments forces now Secondly the argument is absurd because we may forcibly resist and repulse with safe conscience those whom we may not wilfully slay If a man assaults me to beat or wound me I may resist repulse him with violence but I may not kill him in mine own defence without murder or manslaughter unlesse I could not otherwise preserve my own life by slight or resistance Doctor Ferne grants that a Subject may in his own private defence lawfully ward off the Kings own blows and hold his hands in case of sudden and illegall assaults much more then of malicious and premeditated but yet denies he may either wound or kill him and that truely To argue therefore from Davids example and words The King may not with safe conscience be wittingly slain by his subjects Ergo He and his Cavaleers may not be forcibly resisted repulsed by them for their own defence and preservation is a grosse inconsequent by the Doctors own confession Thirdly there is nothing in all these speeches or the practise or in David pertinent to the case in dispute for when Davids men moved him to kill Saul and would have risen up against him to slay him David refused to act or suffer his men to do it neither Saul not any of his men did actually assault David or his followers nor so much as once discover them but Saul went casually to cover his feet into the Cave where they lay hid which done he rose up and went on his way not once espying David though he cut off the skirt of his Robe privily nor any of his men with him To argue therefore That David and his men might not with a safe conscience stretch forth their hands and rise up against their Soveraigne king Saul to kill him thus in cold blood when he assaulted them not nor so much as thought of their being in the Cave and went out of it quietly not discovering them Ergo they might not they would not in conscience have resisted repulsed him or his Forces had they assaulted or given them battell in the Cave is a Non-sence Conclusion just in effect the same with this I may not resist or repulse one who assaulrs me not Ergo I may not resist one that actually assaults me to take away my life or to beat rob wound me What Logick Reason Law or Divinitie is there in such an argument So after this when Abishai said to David God hath delivered Saul thine enemie into thy hand this day now therefore let me smite him I pray thee with the spear even to the earth at once I will not smite him the second time And David said to Abishai Destroy him not for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Anoynted to wit to slay him purposely as Abishai intended and be guiltlesse The Text is expresse That Saul and his men were then in their own Trenches fast a sleep because a deep sleep from the Lord was fallen upon them David and Abishai were here the onely affailants they came into Sauls Trenches he and his whole army were in so sound a sleep that they came to Sauls own person took away with them his Spear and the Cruse or water from his Bolster and departed not being once discerned No man resists assaults discovers them To slay Saul thus in cold blood without any assault or present provocation and especially upon a private quartell had been Treachery and impiety in a Son-in-Law a Servant a Subject a ●uccessour and to do it with the hazard of their own lives had any of Sauls Army been awakened at the stroke Abishai would have given him as probably they might have been they being but two and within their enemies Trenches in the midst of the Army who might have easily and speedily slain them had been rashnesse indiscretion their departure with the Spear and Cruse was more Heroicall Loyall prudentiall To conclude therefore as our Opposites do from this speech and example That David thought it unlawfull in point of Conscience for him or Abishai to murther his S●veraign Lord King Saul when he and his men were thus fast asleep in the midst of their Trenches offering them no wrong making no actuall assaults upon them Ergo they could not would not justly with safe consciences have forcibly defended themselves against Saul and his Army had they been assaulted by them in their own Trenches is a transcendent absurdity refuted by the very next words of David to Abishai at that instant 1 Sam. 26. 10. And David said furthermore As the Lord liveth the Lord shall smite him or his day shall come to die or he shall DESCEND INTO BATTELL AND PERISH which intimates that if Saul would force him to a battell then he might lawfully defend himselfe against his violence though he might not murther him now in his sleep when he did him no hard and if he casually perished in the battell it was Sauls own wilfull default not his who could not disswade him by all this his fair carriage and sparing of his life when he had those two advantages to slay him from his violent prosecution nor yet succeed him in the Crown as God had appointed and foretold should he suffer him to murther him and his men in battell without resistance Yea Davids earnestnesse to go with Achish and the Pallistines to the battell against Sanl wherein he perished 1 Sam. 2● unlesse we will taxe Davide for a notable Hypocrite and dissembler unanswerably eviden●eth that he deemed it lawfull to resist to encounter Saul and his Forces in battell not withstanding his person might chance to perish in the fight though not to slay him treacheously and basely upon the precedent advantages And his slaying of that lying Amalekite who brought him tydings of Sauls death reporting that himself had slain him to gain a reward from David he being then one of Sauls souldiers as it seems concludes onely that it was not lawfull for any of Sauls own men to saly him by his own command Not that resistance of him in the open battell was unlawfull in point of conscience Other answer might be given to this Objection concerning David and Saul As 1. that this difference was but private and personall between Saul and David David being then Sauls private subject Servant Son in Law not publike between Saul his whole Parliament or Kingdom now many things are unlawfull to be done in private quarrels which are iust and honourable in publike differences Secondly that David himself though he thus forbore to murther Saul yet he tels him 1. Sam. 24 10 11 12. This day thine eyes have seen how that the Lord had delivered thee to day into mine hand in the Cave and some had me kill thee but mine eye SPARED THEE and I said I will not put forth

did not ALL ISRAEL upon Solomons death when Rehoboam his son refused to grant their iust requests at their coming to Sechem to make him king use this speech to the king What Portion have we in David neither have we inheritance in the son of lesse to your Tents ô Israel now see to thine own house David Whereupon they departed and fell away from the house of David ever after and made Iereboam King over all Israel And doth not the Text directly affirm Whenefore Rehoboam hearkned not unto the people for the cause was from the Lord that he might perform the saying which the Lord spake to Abijah unto Ieroboam the son of Nebat After which when Rehoboam raised a mighty Army to reduce the ten Tribes to obedience the Word of the Lord came to Shemaiah the man of God saying Speak unto Rehoboam and all the house of Iudah and Benjamin Thus SAITH THE LORD Ye shall not go up to fight against your brethren the children of Israel return every man to his house FOR THIS THING IS FROM ME They hearkned therefore to the word of the Lord and returned to depart according to the word of the Lord. Lo here a Kingdom quite rent a way from the very house of David yea a new King and kingdom erected by the People by Gods and his Prophets speciall direction and approbation for King Solomons Idolatry Who is such a stranger to the sacred Story but hath oft-times read how God anoynted Iehu King of purpose to extirpate and out off the whole house of K. Ahab his Lard for his and Iezabels Idolatry and blood-shed in flaying the Prophets and unjustly executing Naboth for his Vineyard in performance whereof he slew his Soveraign King Ioram Ahaziah King of Iudah Queen Iezabel all Ahabs posterity his great men his Nobles and all the Priests and Worshippers of Baal till he left none remaining according to the word of the Lord which he spake by his servant Elijah 2 Kings c. 9. 10. For which good service the Lord said unto Iehu Because THOV HAST DONE WELL in executing that which is right in mine eyes and hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was IN MINE HEART thy children of the 4. generation shall sit on the Thron of Israel This fact therefore of his thus specially commanded approved rewarded by God himself must needs be just and lawfull nor Treason nor Rebellion in Iehu unlesse the Opposites will charge God to be the author approver and rewarder of sin of Treason Neither will it serve their turns to Reply that this was an extraordinary example not to be imitated without such a speciall commission from heaven as Iehu had and no man can now a dayes expect For since God hath frequently injoyned all grosse incorrigible Idolaters especially those who are nearest and dearest to and most potent to seduce us to be put to death without any pitty or exception of Kings whose examples are most pernicious and apt to corrupt the whole Nation as the presidents of the Idolatrous kings of Israel and Iudah abundantly evidence if Kings become open professed Idolaters though private persons may not murther them and their families as Iehu yet the representative body or greater part of their Kingdoms as many Pious Divines affirm may lawfully convent depose if not judge them capitally for it and Gods putting zeal and courage into their hearts or exciting them by his faithfull Ministers to such a proceeding is a sufficient Divine Commission to satisfie Conscience if no sinister private ends but meer zeal of Gods glory and detestation of Idolatry be the onely Motives to such their proceedings Thus we read God stirred up Baacha exalted out of the dust and made him a Prince over the house of Israel who slew king Nadab and smote all the house of Jeroboam till he left him not any that breatned because of the sins of Ieroboam which he sinned and which he made Israel sin by his provocations wherewith he provoked the Lord God of Israel to anger who going on after in Ieroboams sins God threatens to out off all his house and make it like the house of Ieroboam which was actually executed by Zimri who slew his Soveraign King Elah son to Baacha With all the house of Baacha and left not one that pissed against the wall neither of his kinsfolks nor of his friends according to the word of the Lord which he spake against Baacha by● ●chu the Prophet Which act of Zimri though a just judgement in regard of God on the family of Baacha for their Idolatry was notwithstanding reputed Treason in Zimri because he did it not out of Conscience or zeal against Idolatry being and continuing an Idolater himself but onely out of ambition to usurp the Crown without the peeples consent whereupon all the people made Omri King and then going all to the Royall Palace set it on fire and burnt Omri in it both for his sins Idolatries and Treason which he wrought We read expresly that after the time that Amaziah did turn away from following the Lord they for this conspired a conspiracie against him in Ierusalem and he fled to Lachish but they sent to Lachish after him slew him there and they brought him upon horses and buried him with his fathers in the City of Iudah Then all the people of Iudah took Uzziah who was 16 years old and MADE HIM KING in the room of his father Amaziah and he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord. So Zachariah Shallum Pekahiah Pekah four evill Kings of Iudah successivly acquiring the Crown by murther and reigning evilly in Gods fight were all slain by Gods just judgement on them of one another and Hoshea In few words God himself ever annexed this condition to the Kings of Israel and Iudah that they should serve and fear him obey him Laws keep his Covenant otherwise if they did wickedly for sake him or commit idolatry he would destroy forsake and cast them and their seed off from being Kings When therefore they apparently violated the condition the whole State and people as Gods Instruments lawfully might and sometimes did by Gods speciall direction remov depose and sometimes put them even to death for their grosse iniquities and idolatries and when they did it not it was not as many think for want of lawfull Soveraign Authority remaining in the whole State and people as I shall fully manifest in the Appendix but out of a defect of zeal out of a generall complying with their Kings in their abominable idolatries and sins which brought War Captivity ruine both on their Kings their Posteritie the whole Nation and Kingdoms of Iudah and Israel as the Sacred Story plentifully relates All which considere this object on proves not onely false but fatall to the Obiectors cause who might with more discretion have forborn then forced such an answer to it which I hope and desire