Selected quad for the lemma: enemy_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
enemy_n	hand_n	lord_n	stretch_v	1,025	5	9.8952	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

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

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

THE THIRD PART OF THE SOVERAIGNE POWER 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 2 Sam. 10. 12. Be of good courage and let us play the men for our People and for the City of our God and the Lord doe what seemeth him good Esther 9. 1 2. 5 10. In the day that the enemies of the Jewes hoped to have power over them the Jewes gathered themselves together into their Cities through out all the Provinces of King Ahashuerus to lay hand on those that sought their lives and no man could withstand them for the feare of them fell upon all people Thus the Jewes sinote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword and slaughter and destruction and did what they would with those that hated them but on the spoile laid they not their hand It is this eighth day of May 1643. Ordered by the Committee of the House of Commons in Parliament for Printing that this Booke Intituled The third Part of the Soveraign Power of Parliaments and Kingdomes be Printed by Michael Sparke senior John White Printed at London for Michael Sparke Senior 1643. TO HIS EVER-HONOVRED NOBLE KINDE FRIENDS THE Right Honourable Lord Ferdinando Fairfax the Right Worshipfull Sir William Waller and Sir William Bruerton Knights Commanders in Chiefe of the Parliaments Forces in severall Counties Deservedly Renowned Worthies YOUR Incomparable Valour Zeale Activity Industry for the preservation of Your Dearest Country Religion Lawes Liberties and the very being of Parliaments all now endangered by an unnaturall generation of Popish and Malignant Vipers lately risen up in Armes against them in diverse parts of this Realme and those many miraculous Victories with which God hath beene lately pleased to Crowne your cordiall endeavours to promote his glory and the Publicke safety as they have justly demerited some gratefull generall Acknowledgements from the whole Representative Body of the State so they may in some sort challenge a private gratulatory Retribution from Me who have formerly had the happinesse to participate in your Christian Affections and now reape much Consolation by your Heroick Actions Having therefore seasonably finished this Third part Of the Soveraigne Power of Parliaments and Kingdoms copiously Vindicating the Lawfulnesse Iustnesse of the Parliaments present Necessary Defensive Warre in which you have had the Honour to be imployed not onely as Chiefe but which is more as most successefull Commanders in your severall Countries in point both of Law and Conscience and fully wiping off those blacke Aspersions of TREASON and REBELLION which the opposite party really guilty of these crimes against both King and Kingdome as I have elsewhere manifested and here lightly touched have out of Malice Ignorance or both conjoyned most injuriously cast upon your Loyall honourable proceedings which rejoyce the soules of all true Philopaters who cordially affect their Country or Religion I could not without much ingratitude yea injustice have published it to the world but under the Patronage of your ever-honored resplendent names who have so valorously so successefully pleaded this Cause already in the Field that it needs the lesse assistance from the Presse My many inevitable interruptions and straites of time in its contexture which may happily detract something from its perfection shall I hope derogate nothing from your Honourable Friendly acceptation whom I have thus conjoyned in the Dedication because the Parliament hath united you in their present Warlike employments and God himselfe joyntly honoured you with successe even to admiration among the Good indignation amidst Malignants envy with the Malicious and I trust to an active sedulous emulation in all your Fellow Commanders imployed in other Quarters in the selfesame Cause Your present busie publike and mine owne private Imployments prohibite me to expatiate Wherefore earnestly beseeching the Glorious Lord of Hosts to be ever mightily present with your severall Noble Persons Forces and to make you alwayes eminently active Valorous Victorious as hitherto he hath done till Peace and Truth Tranquillity and Piety by your severall triumphant Proceedings shall once more lovingly embrace and kisse each other in our divided unreformed sinfull Kingdomes And till the effect of these just warres You manage shall be quietnesse and assurance to us and our Posterities after us for ever I humbly recommend your Persons Proceedings to his protection who can secure you in and from all dangers of warre and rest Your Honours Worships most affectionate Friend and Servant WILLIAM PRYNNE To the Reader Christian Reader I Who have beene alwayes hitherto a Cordiall Desirer endeavourer of Peace am here necessitated to present Thee with a Discourse of Warre to justifie The Lawfulnesse of the Parliaments present taking up of necessary Defensive Armes Which neither their Endeavours nor my with many others Prayers could with any safety to our Priviledges Persons Religion Liberty Realmes now forcibly invaded by his Majesties Popish and Malignant Cavallieres hitherto prevent or conjure downe To plead the Justnesse of a Warre of an unnaturall Civill warre the worst of any of a Warre betweene the Head and Members may seeme not onely a Paradox but a Prodigie in a Land heretofore blessed with an aged uninterrupted Peace And Lucans Bella per AEmathios plusquam civilia Campos c. now most unhappily revived among us being but Historicall and Poeticall may passe the world with lesse admiration and censure than this harsh Peece which is both Legally Theologically like the Subject matter Polemicall But as the ayme the end of all just War is and ought to be onely future setled Peace so is the whole drift of this Military Dissertation not to foment or protract but end our bloody Warres which nothing hath more excited animated lengthened in the Adverse party than a strong conceite if not serious beliefe that The Parliaments Forces neither would nor lawfully might in point of Law or Conscience forcibly resist or repulse their invasive Armes without danger of High Treason and Rebellion which Bug-beare I have here refuted removed and the In-activity the much admired slownesse of many of our Forces in resisting in preventing their vigorous Proceedings which a little timely vigilance and diligence had easily controlled It is a more than

tilting blame themselves alo●e and have no other just legall remedie but patience it being neither Treason Rebellion nor Murther in the defensive party and most desperate folly and frenzie in any Prince to engage himselfe in such a danger when beneede not doe it I reade of Charles the first of France that he fell sodainely destracted upon a message he rec●ived from an old poore man as he was marching in the head of his Army and thereupon thinking himselfe b●tray●d encountred his owne men and slew two or three of them ere they were ware of him wo●nding others Whereupon they closing with him dis●rmed and led him away fo●ceably keeping him close shut up like à Bedla● till he recovered his sens●s I thinke no man in his right wits will deeme this their action Treasonable or unlawfull neither did the king or any in that age thus repute it If then a King in an angry franticke passion for Ir. brevius furor est shall take up Armes against his loyall Subjects and assault their persons to murther them and spoyle their goods if they by common consent in Parliament especially shall forcibly resist disarme or restraine his person till his fury be appeased and his judgement rectified by better councells shall this be Treason Rebellion or Disloyaltie God forbid I thinke none but mad men can or will averte it It was a great doubt in Law till the statute of 33. H. 8. c. 20. setled it If a party that had committed any high Treasons when he was of perfect memory after accusation examination and confession thereof became madde or lunaticke whether he should b● tried and condemned for it during this distemper And some from that very act and 21. H. 7. 31. 36. Ass 27. 12. H. 3. For faiture 33 and Dower 183. Fitz. Nat. Br. 202. D. Stamford Pleas 16. b. and Cooke l. 4. f. 124. Beverlyes case which resolve ●hat a Lunaticke or Non Compos cannot be guilty of murthe● fel n●y ●●petite Treason because having no understanding and knowing not what he doth he can ●ave n● follonius intention conceive that a reall mad-man cannot be guilty of high Treason though Sir Edward Cooke in Bev●rlies case be of a contrary opinion if he should assault or kill his king And I suppose few will deeme Walter Terrils casuall killing of King William Rufus with the glance of his arrow from a tree shot at a Deere high Treason neither was it then reputed so or he prosecuted as a Traytor for it because he had no malicious intention as most thinke against the King or any thought to hurt him But I conceive it out of question if a king in a distracted furious passion without just cause shall invade his subjects persons in an open hostile manner to destroy them it neither is nor can be Treason ner Rebellion in them if in their owne necessary defence alone they shall either casually wound or slay him contrary to their loyall intentions and those Statutes and Law-book●s which judge it high Treason for any one maliciously and trayterously to imagine compasse or conspire the death of the King will not at all extend to such a case of meere just defence since a conspiracie or imagination to compasse or procure the Kings death can neither be justly imagined nor presumed in those who are but meerely defensive no more then in other common cases of one mans killing another in his owne inevitable defence without any precedent malice in which a Pardon by Law is granted of course however questionlesse it is no Treason nor murther at all to slay any of the kings souldiers and Cavaliers who are no kings in such a defensive warre Sixthly suppose the King should be captivated or violently led away by any forraign or domesticke enemies to him and the kingdome and carried along with them in the field to countenance their warres and invasions upon his loyallest Subjects by illegall warrants or Commissions fraudulently procured or extorted from him If the Parliament and Kingdome in such a case should raise an Army to rescue the King out of their hands and to that end encountring the enemies should casually wound the King whiles they out of loyalty sought onely to rescue him I would demaund of any Lawyer or Divine whether this Act should be deemed Treason Rebellion or Disloyalty in the Parliament or army Or which of the two Armies should in point of Law or Conscience be reputed Rebells or Traytors in this case those that come onely to rescue the King and so fight really for him indeed though against him in shew and wound him in the rescue Or those who in shew onely fought for him that they might still detaine him captive to their wills Doubtlesse there is no Lawyer nor Theologue but would presently resolve in such a case that the Parliaments Army which fought onely to rescue the King were the loyall Subjects and the Malignants army who held him captive with them the onely Rebels and traytors and that the casuall wounding of him proceeding not out of any malicious intention but love and loyalty to redeeme him from captivity were no trespasse nor offence at all being quite besides their thoughts and for a direct president It was the very case of King Henry the third who together with his sonne Prince Edward being taken Prisoner by the Earle of Leycester in the battle of Lewis and the Earle afterwards carrying him about in his Company in nature of a Prisoner to countenance his actions to the great discontent of the Prince the Earle of Glocester and other Nobles hereupon the Prince and they raising an Army encountred the Earle and his Porces in a battle at Evesha● where the King was personally present slew the Earle Routed his Army and rescued the king in this cruell battell the king himselfe being wounded unawares with a Iavelin by those who rescued him was almost slaine and lost much of his blood yet in a Parliament soone after sommoned at Winchester Anno 1266. the Earle and his Army were dis-inherited as Traytors and Rebels but those who rescued them though with danger to his person rewarded as his loyall subjects And is not this the present case A company of malignant ill Councellors Delinquents Prelates Papists have withdrawne his Majestie from his Parliament raised an Army of Papists Forraigners Delinquents and Male-contents to ruin the Parliament Kingdome Religion Lawes Liberties to countenance this their designe they detaine his Majestie with them and engage him all they can on their side the Parliament out of no disloyall intention but onely to rescue his Majesties person out of their hands to apprehend delinquents preserve the Kingdome from spoyle and defend their Priviledges Persons Liberties estates religion from unjust invasions have raised a defensive Army which encountred these Forces at Edgehill where they say the King was present slew the Lord Generall Earle of Lindsey with many others and as they never intended so they

violence And his Speech to Pilate after his taking plainely iustifies the lawfulnesse of such a forcible defence with Armes to preserve a mans life from unjust execution Iohn 18. 36 If my Kingdome were of this world Then would my Servants fight in my Defence and Rescue that I should Not be delivered to the Iewes but now my kingdom is not from hence All which considered clearely justifies the Lawfulnesse of resisting the Kings or higher Powers Officers in cases of apparant unjust open violence or assaults and withall answers one grand argument against resistance from our Saviours present Example namely Christ himselfe made no resistance when hee was unjustly apprehended Ergo Christians his Followers Ergo no Kings no Magistrates too as well as Christ the King of Kings and Lord of Lords for they are Christians as well as subjects ought not to make any forcible resistance of open violence Which argument is a meere inconsequent because the reason why Christ resisted not these Pursevants and High Priests Officers was onely that his Fathers decree and the Scriptures foretelling his Passion might be fulfilled as himselfe resolves not because hee deemed resistance Vnlawfull which he even then approved though hee practised it not as these Texts doe fully proove Fourthly The lawfulnesse of a defensive Warre against the invading Forces of a Soveraigne is warranted by the example of the City Abel which stood out and defended it selfe against Ioab Davids Generall and his Forces when they besieged and battered it till they had made their peace with the head of Sheba who fled into it for shelter 2 Sam. 20. 14. to 23. And by that of Ester Ch. 8. 8. to 17. chap 9. 1. to 17. pertinent to this purpose Where Haman having gotten the Kings Decree to be sent unto all Provinces for the utter extirpation of the whole Nation of the Iewes the King after Hamans Execution through Gods great mercy and Mordecaies and Queene Esters diligence to prevent this bloody massacre by their Enemies granted to the Iewes in every City by Letters under his Seale To gather themselves together and to stand for their lives to destroy to slay and to cause to perish all the power of the people and Province That would Assault them both litle ones and women and to take the spoile of them for a prey and that the Iewes should be ready against the day to avenge themselves of their enemies Hereupon when the day that the Kings Commandment and Decree for their extirpation drew neere to be put in execution in the day that the enmies of the Iewes hoped to have power over them the Iewes gathered themselves together in their Cities throughout all the Provinces of King Ahasuerus to lay hand on such as sought their hurt and no man could withstand them for the feare of them fell upon all people And all the Rulers of the Provinces and the Lieutenants Deputies and Officers of the King helped the Iewes because the feare of Mordecai fell upon them So the Iewes smote all their enemies with the stroake of the Sword and slaughter and destruction and did what they would unto those that hated them In the Palace they slew eight hundred men and Hamans tenne sonnes on severall dayes And the other Iewes that were in the Provinces gathered themselves together and Stood for their Lives and had rest from their enemies and slew of their foes seventy and five thousand but they laid not their hands on the prey Loe here a Defensive war justified and granted lawfull by the Kings owne Letters to the Iewes against their enemies who by former Charters from him had Commission wholly to extirpate them Neither had this licence of the King in point of Conscience been lawfull had their defence and resistance of the Kings former Commission been wholly unlawfull And the reason of the Kings grant to them to resist and slay their Enemies that would assault them was not simply because their resistance without it and standing for their lives had beene unlawfull by reason of the Kings first unjust Decree which they ought not in Conscience to submit to without repugnancy But onely to enable the Iewes then Captives and scattered abroad one from another in every Province with more convenience securitie boldnesse and courage now to joyne their forces together to resist their malicious potent enemies to daunt them the more thereby Nature it selfe yea and all Lawes in such a bloody Nationall Butchery as this without any just cause at all both taught and enabled every one of the Iewes to stand for his life his Nations Religions preservation even to the last drop of blood Therefore the Letters of the King did not simply enable them to resist their enemies which they might have done without them but give them Authority to destroy and slay the Wives and little children of their Enemies and to take the spoile of them for a prey which they refused to doe because they deemed it unjust notwithstanding the Kings permission and concession which as to these particulars was illegall and more then hee could justly grant This generall Nationall resistance of Gods own people then of their assaulting cruell Enemies even among Strangers in the land of their Captivity under a forraigne Enemy with the former and other following precedents will questionlesse more then conjecturally prove if not infallibly resolve The lawfulnesse of a necessary Defensive Warre and opposition by free Subiects against their Kings assailing Forces which seekes their ruine though armed with their Kings Commission and that without any Ordinance of Parliament authorising them to resist much more then when enabled to oppose them by Ordinances of both Houses as the Iewes were to resist and slay their enemies by this Kings Letters and Authority Thirdly That kind of resistance which hath no one Text nor Example in Scripture to impeach its lawfulnesse but many Texts and precedents to countenance it must doubtlesse be lawfull in point of Conscience But the resisting of Kings invading pillaging destructive Forces who have nothing to plead to justifie all their Villanies but a void illegall Warrant hath no one Text nor example in Scripture to impeach its lawfulnesse for ought I can finde and if there be any such I wish the Opposites would object it for Rom. 13. as I shall shew hereafter doth no waies contradict but approve it But it hath many Texts and precedents to countenance it as the premises and sequell attest Therefore it must doubtlesse bee-lawfull in point of Conscience Fourthly it is confessed by all men yea those who are most intoxicated with an Anabaptisticall spirit condemning all kind of warre refusing to carry Armes to defend themselves against any Enemies Theeves or Pirates that it is lawfull not onely passively to resist their Kings unlawfull Commands and invading Forces but likewise by flight hiding or other pollicies to evade and prevent their violence which is warranted not onely by Moses Davids and Elijahs

and fight with this their weapon That it is unlawfull for Christians to fight or make so much as a defensive warre against invading Forraign barbarous Enemies of whom this Father speaks And then if the Irish Rebels Danes Spaniards French should now invade England both against the Kings and Kingdoms Wills we must make no forcible resistance at all against them with Arms in point of conscience but onely use prayers and teares This is the uttermost conclusion which can properly be hence deduced which our Antagonists will confesse to be at least erronious Anabaptisticall if not Hereticall Secondly You must consider who it was that used this speech Ambrose a Minister then Bishop of Millain who by reason of this his function being an Ambassadour of Peace had his hands bound from fighting with any other weapons even against invading forraign Enemies but only with the sword of the spirit prayers and tears and that his calling only was the ground of this his speech is infallible by the latter clause thereof which our Opposites cunningly conceale Prayers are my Armes For such are the Defensive Armour OF PRIESTS Otherwise I NEITHER OVGHT NOR CAN RESIST Why so Because he was a Minister a Bishop and Paul prohibites such to be STRIKERS Tit. 1. 7. 1 Tim. 3. 3. and because Priests under the Law did but blow the Trumpets and never went out armed to the warres Josh 6. Upon which ground Divers Councells Decretalls Canonists expresly prohibit and exempt Priests and Bishops from bearing Arms or going to Warre though many of them have turned great Souldiers and been slain in warres Hence Anno 1267 in a Parliament held at Bury K. H. 3 d. and Ottobon the Popes Legat demanded of all the Bishops and Clergy men holding Barronies or Lay-fees that they should go personally armed against the Kings enemies or finde so great service in the Kings expedition as appertained to so much Lands and Tenants To which they answered That THEY OUGHT NOT TO FIGHT WITH THE MATERIALL SWORD no not against the Kings Enemies But with the spirituall to wit with humble and devoute tears and prayers using these words of Ambrose And that for their benefices they were bound to maintain Peace NOT WARRE Hence our King Richard the first taking the Bishop of Beauvoyes in France his great Enemy armed from top to toe prisoner in the field commanded him to be strictly kept in prison in his arms and would by no means suffer him to put them off for which hard usuage he complained to the Pope and procured his letter to King Richard to free him from his arms and restraint in which Letter the Pope sharply reproves the Bishop for preferring the secular warfare before the spirituall in that he had taken a Speare insteed of a Crosier an Helmet in liew of a Miter an Habergion insteed of a white Rochet a Target in place of a Stole an Iron-sword insteed of a spirituall sword After which the King sent his Arms with this Message to the Pope See whether this be thy sonnes Coat or not Which the Pope beholding answered No by Saint Peter It is neither the apparell of my sonnes nor yet of my Brethren but rather the vesture of the sonnes of Mars And upon this ground Our Bishops anciently when Members of Parliament departed the house when Cases of Treason or Felony came in question because they might not by the Canons have their hands in bloud This then being Ambrose his direct words and meaning That he neither ought nor could use any other Weapons against the invading Gothes and their forces but prayers and tears because he was a Minister not a Bishop a Lay-man The genvine Argument that our opposites can thence extract is but this Priests must use no other Defensive Arms but prayers and tears against invading forraign Enemies Ergo The Priests and Ministers in his Majesties Armies who bear Offensive Arms must now in conscience lay them down and use no other resistance but prayers and tears against the Parliaments forces where as their former inference against resistance Ergo It is altogether unlawfull for the Parliament or any Lay-Subjects by their command to defend Religion Laws Liberties against his Majesties invading forces who intend by force to subvert them is but ridiculous nonsence which never once entred into this Fathers thoughts and can never be extorted from his words Ministers of the Gospel must not use any Arms but prayers and tears to resist a forraigne Enemy Ergo None else may lawfully use them to withstand an invading adversary Is a conclusion fitter for Anabaptists then Royallists who may now with shame enough for ever bid this authority adieu with which they have hitherto gulled the ignorant World And henceforth turn it against the Commission of Array enjoyning Bishops and Clergy men to array and arme themselves as well as other men as the Presidents cited in Judge Cooke his Argument against Ship-money in the Parliaments two Declarations against the Commission of Array and in the Answer published in the Kings name to the first of them plentifully evidence Finally Hence I infer That Clergy men may and must fight against their invading Enemies with prayers tears the Weapons which they may lawfully use as proper for their callings Ergo Lay-men may and must resist and fight against them with corporall Arms since they are as proper for them in cases of needfull defence as these spirituall Arms are for Priests The second Authority is that of Nazienzen Oratio 2. in Julianum Repressus of Julianus Christianorum lachrymis quas multas multi profuderunt HOC VNVM or Solum as Grotius translates it adversus persecutionem medicamentum habentes To which I shall adde by way of supply this other passage Nos autem quibus NVLLA ALIA ARMA nec muri nec praesidia praeter spem in Deum reliqua erant Vtpote OMNI HVMANO SVBSIDIO PRORSVS DESTITVTIS ET SPOLIATIS quem tandem alium aut precum auditorem aut inimicorum depulsorem habituri eramus quam Deum Jacob qui adversus superbiam jurat From whence they conclude that Christians must use no other weapons but prayers and tears against Tyrants and oppressors To which I answer First that it is cleare by this that Christians may use prayers and teares against Tyrants and oppressors Secondly that these are the most powerfull prevailing Armes both to resist and conquer them This the opposites readily grant Therefore by their own confession Christians both may and must resist tyrants by the most powerful effectual means that are Tyrants therefore are not the higher Powers Kings Rulers which Paul and Peter in the fore-objected texts enjoyne men under paine of damnation to be subject and obedient to for conscience sake and no waies to resist since they may resist them with the powerfullest armes of all others prayers and teares Thirdly if they may be lawfully resisted with these most prevailing armes notwithstanding