Selected quad for the lemma: hand_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
hand_n	david_n	king_n	saul_n	6,232	5	10.0779	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

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

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

at all to any but onely to these 4. not other kings who are not anointed Now seeing only hese 4. kings are actually anointed yea lawfull Kings and their persons sacred even before they are annointed or crowned yea other kings persons as of Spain Hungary Denmark Sweden Poland c. who are not annointed are as sacred as exempt from danger as those who are enoyled And seeing the annointing of kings is at this day a meer arbitrary humane Ceremony not injoyned by divi●e authority nor common to all Kings who are Kings before their Coronations it is most certain and infallible that this enoyling in and of it selfe derives no personall Prerogatives or Immunities at all to kings much lesse an absolute exemption from all actuall resistance in cases of unjust invasions on their Subjects or from the censures of their Parliaments for publike distructive exorbitances as most have hitherto blindly beleeved Neither will the frequent next objected speeches of David concerning Soul Impeach the premises 1 Sam. 24. 6. 10. c. 26. 9. 11. 2. 2 Sam. 1. 12. 16. The Lord forbid that I should do this thing unto my Master the Lords Annointed to stretch forth my hand against him seeing he is the Lords Annointed I will not put forth my hand against my Lord for he he is the Lords annointed And David said to Abishai Destroy him not for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Annointed and he guiltlesse The Lord forbid that I should stretch forth his hand against the Lords Annointed The Lord delivered thee into my hand to day but I would not stretch forth mine hand against the Lords Annointed How wa● thou not afraid to siretch forth thy hand against the Lords Annointed Thy blood shall be upon thy head for thy mouth hath testified that thou hast slain the Lords Annointed Which severall Texts seem at first sight to insinuate that Sauls very externall annointing was that which did secure his person from assauls and violence and that it is unlawfull even by way of defence forcibly with Armes to resist a persecuting unjustly invading king because he is annointed But these Texts if duly pondered will warrant neither of these conclusions First then I answer that Sauls bare annointing considered as an externall Ceremony to declare him a lawfull King did not could not adde any immunity to his person against Davids or any other Subjects just violent resistance as the premised reasons manifest but it was onely his royall Soveraign Office conferred on him by God and the people to which his externall annointing by Samuel was but a preparation That which made Saul with other his successours a king was not his bare annointing For Saul himselfe was annointed by Samuel before he was made and chosen King not when he was made King So David Hazael selu with others were annointed before they were actuall Kings and many of their Successors by descent were reall kings before they were annointed some of them being not annointed at all for ought we read therefore their unction made them not kings since neither simply necessary nor essentiall to their being kings Nor did Sauls annointing only preceding his Regality make his person sacred or any other kings persons for then it would follow That if Saul had not been actually annointed or had continued king for some yeeres without this annointing then David in such a case might lawfully have slain him without check of conscience and that the persons of kings not at all annointed and of hereditary kings before their Coronations till they are annointed should not be sacred nor exempt from violence which is both false and perillous to affirm but it was his Soveraign Royall Authority over David then his Son-in-law Servant Subject which restrained him from offering violence to his person Soul then being thus priviledged not because he was annointed but because he was an annointed king and that not quatenus Annointed but quatenus King the true sense and genuine interpretation of these Texts must be That Sauls person was sacred exempt from his Subjects violence not because he was annointed as if that only did priviledge him but because he was a lawfull king appointed by the Lord himselfe the Lords annointed being but a periphrasis or forme of speech wherein the Geremony of annointing is used for the Regality or kingly power it selfe declared not conferred by annointing and in plain words without any figure it is put for the Lords King that is a King appointed by the Lord in which sence God calls Christ my King and David stiles himselfe x Gods King Sauls Royall Authority without his annointing not his annointing predestinating him to his Authority being the ground of this his immunity from Davids violence Secondly Saul was annointed some space before he was made King and David many yeere before hee came to the Crowne I would then demand of any man if Saul or David after their unction and before their election and inauguration to the Crown had invaded or assaulted any of the people in an hostile manner whether they might not have justly resisted repulsed yea slain them to in their own necessary defence If not then one Subject may not repulse the unjust violence of another in an elective kingdome if by possibility he may after wards be chosen king though for the present he be neither actually king nor Magistrate but a Shepheard as David was Psal 78. 70 71. which I presume none will affirm I am certain none can prove If so then it was not Sauls annointing but onely his Royall Authority which made David thus to spare his life his person So that our Opposites pressing this Argument only from his Annointing is both false and idle as all the premises demonstrate But to set the Argument right I answer thirdly That all which these Texts and Davids example prove is but this That Subjects ought not wilfully or purposely to murder or offer violence to the persons of their kings especially in cold blood when they doe not actually assault them Ergo they may not resist repulse their personall actuall assaults nor oppose their cut-throat Cavaleers when they make an unjust warre against them Which Argument is a meer Non sequitur For 1. Davids example extends only to Sauls own person not to his Souldiers who were neither kings nor Gods Annointed and whom David no doubt would have resisted and slain too had they assaulted him though he spared Saul as Dr. Fern himselfe insinuates in these words Davids Guard that he had about him was onely to secure his person against the cut-throats of Saul if sent to take away his life c. He was annoynted and designed by the Lord to succeed Saul and therefore he might use an extraordinary way of safe-guarding his person Therefore he and his Guard would and might doubtlesse have with a safe conscience resisted repulsed Sauls cut-throat Souldiers had they assaulted David to take

poenitentia pium quam imperto scoelest●●m 〈…〉 confessus A memorable story of a zealous stout Prelate and of a pen●tent submissive wild Prince I shall only adde to this some few domestick president● of our Welch Kings Teudur king of Brecknock for his periury and murther of Elgisti● another King of that Countrey was solemnly excommunicated by Gurcan the 10. Bishop of Landaffe and his Clergy in a Synod assembled for this purpose by uncovering the Altars casting the Crosses and Reliques on the ground and depriving him 〈◊〉 Christian communion Whereupon Toudur unable to undergoe this malediction and rigorous iustice with a contrite heart and many teares powred forth craved pardon of his crimes and submitted himselfe to the penance imposed on him according to his quality and greatnesse King Clotri slaying Iuguallaun treacherously contrary to his League and Oath Berthgwin the 14. Bishop of Landaffe hearing thereof assembled a Synod of his Clergy at Landaffe and solemnly excommunicated the King with all his Progeny and Kingdom by uncovering the Altars casting down the Crosses on the earth and depriving the Countrey both of Baptisme and the Euch●rist Whereupon the King unable to endure so great an excommunication with great deiection submitted himselfe to the Bishop and leaving his Kingdom went on pilgrimage into forraign parts for a long space after which returning by the intercession of king Morcant he obtained absolution from the Bishop to whose enioyned penance he submitted himself conferring divers Lands upon the Church And in another Synod at Landaffe under this Bishop King Gurcan for living incestuously with his Mother-in-law was solemnly excommunicated in form aforesaid whereupon he craved pardon resolved to put away his Mother-in-law promised satisfaction by K. Iudhail his Intercessor upon which he was absolved upon promise of amendment of life with fasting prayer and almes after which he bestowed divers Lands on the Church Houell king of Gleuissig contrary to his Oath League trecherously circumverring and slaying Gallun hereupon Cerenlyir the 18. Bishop of Landaffe calling a Synod solemnly excommunicated him by laying all the crosses on the ground overturning the Bells taking the Reliques from the Altar and casting them on the ground depriving him of all Christian communion under which excommunication he remained almost a whole yeers space After which this king came bare-foot to the Bishop imploring his absolution from this sentence with many teares which he obtained after publke penance enoyned Not long after the same Bishop and his Clergy in another Synod for the like crime in the self-same former excommunicated Ili sonne of Conblus till he came bare-footed with teares and prayed absolution which upon performance of enjoyned penance promise of future reformation with prayers fasting almes and the setling of some Lands on the Church was granted him by the Bishop So Loumarch son of Cargnocaun was in a full Synod excommunicated by Gulfrid the 20. Bishop of this See for violating the patrimony of the Church and king Brochuail with his family convented before a Synode threatned Excommunication enjoyned Penance and satisfaction by the Synode for some injuries offered to to Ciueilliauc the two and twentieth Bishop of Landaffe Mauric King of of Glamorgan was excommunicated by Ioseph the eigth and twentieth Bishop of Landaffe for treacherously putting out the eyes of Etguin during the truce between them After which he was again publikely excommunicated in a Synode for violating the Sanctuarie of the Church of Landaffe and hurting some of this Bishops servants and not absolved till he made his submission and did his Penance and gave some lands to the Church for satisfaction of these offence Thus Calgucam King of Morganauc and his whole family were solemnly excommunicated by Her●wald the nine and twentieth Bishop of Landaffe in a Synod of all his Clergy onely because one of the Kings followers being drunk laid violent hands upon Bathutis the Bishops Physitian and Kinsman on Christmas day Anno 1056. Whereupon all the Crosses and Reliques were cast to the ground the Bells overturned the Church doors stopped up with thorns so as they continued without a Pastor and Divine Service day and night for a long season till the King though innocent submitted himself to the Bishop and to obtain his absolution gave Henringuinna to him and his Successors for ever free from all secular and royall services in the presence of all the Clergie and people So Richard the tenth Bishop of Bangor excommunicated David ap Lhewelin Prince of Wales for detaining his brother Griffith prisoner contrarie to his Oath repairing to him upon the Bishops word for his safe return who never left vexing him till he had delivered him up to to the King of Englands hands Many such presidents of Prelates censuring and excommunicating their Kings occur in Storie which for brevity I pretermit onely ' I shall inform you that Iohn Stratford Archbishop of Canterbury in the 14. year of K. Edw. 3 contesting with this King and excommunicating divers of his followers and all the infringers of the Churches Liberties presumed to write thus unto his Soveraign There are two things by which the world is principally governed The sacred Pontificall authority and the royall power of which the Priesthood is by so much the more weighty ponderous and sublim● by how much they are to give an account of kings themselves at the Divine audit And therefore the kings Majesty ought to know that you ought to depend on their judgement not they to be regulated according to your will For who doubteth that the priests of Christ are accounted the FATHERS AND MASTERS of Kings Princes and all faithfull Christians Is it not known to be apart of miserable madnesse if the son should endeavour to subjugate the Father the servant the master to himself The Canonicall authority of Scriptures testifieth that diver Pontiffs have excommunicated some of them Kings others Emperours And if you require somewhat in speciall of the persons of Princes Saint Innocent smote the Emperour Archadius with the sword of excommunication because he consented that Saint John Chrysostom should be violently expelled from his See Likewise Saint Ambrose Archbishop of Millain for afault which seemednot so hainous to other priests excommunicated the Emperour Theodosius the great From which sentence having first given condigne satisfation he afterwards deserved to be absolved and many such like examples may be alleaged both more certain for time and nearer for place Therefore no Bishops whatsoever neither may nor ought to be punished by the secular Power if they chance to offend through humane frailtie For it is the duty of a good and religious Prince to honour the Priests of God and defend them with greatest reverence in imitation of the Pious Prince of most happy memory Constantine saying when the cause of Priests was brought before him You cannot be iudged by any to wit of the secular judges who are reserved to the iudgement of God alone according

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

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

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

their severall flights from the violence of the Egyptians Saul and Iezabel who sought their lives but likewise by Ioseph Mary and Christ himselfe who fled into Egypt to escape the hands and but chery of King Herod by Christs own direction to his Disciples Matth. 10. 23. But when they persecute you in this City flee yee into another and that Prediction of his Matth. 23. 34. Behold I send unto you Prophets and wise men and Scribes and some of them ye shall kill and crucifie and some of them shall you scourge in your Synagogues and persecute them from City to City which was really fulfilled Acts 8. 3. 4. c. 9. 1 2. c 11. 19. c. 13. 50 51. c. 14. 1 to 24 c. 17. 1. to 16. c. 22. 42. c. 26. 11. 12. c. 9. 24 25 26. 2 Cor. 11. 32. 33. Rev. 12. 6. Of which reade more in Tertullian his booke De Fuga in persecutione Hence then I argue thus That unjust violence of Princes and their Armies which Subjects with a safe conscience may decline and flee from when as they want power meanes or convenience to resist it they may no doubt lawfully resist even with force of Armes when they have sufficient meanes and conveniences to resist and cannot flee or submit thereto without the publicke ruine since the same justice and equity which enables them by flight or stratagem to decline unjust assaults of a superior power or its judgements doth likewise enable them to escape and prevent it with resistance when they cannot doe it by flight or other policie If then they may lawfully with a safe conscience hide flee or use lawfull policies to prevent the open injust violence of their kings and their Officers when not guilty of any capitall crime deserving censures because by the very light of nature and Law of Charity they are obliged to preserve themselves from unjust tyrannie and are no wayes bound to subject themselves to the cruelty the unjust assaults or oppressions of others then by the selfesame reason they may lawfully with force of Armes defend themselves against such violent unjust attempts which they are no way obliged to submit unto when as they cannot conveniently secure themselves and the publicke but by such resistance and should both betray their owne the publicke safety and Religion as the Subjects and Parliament should now do in case they did not resist by force of Armes to the utmost of their power and become worse than Infidels who have even thus oft provided for their owne and the Republickes securitie Fiftly God himselfe the fountaine oft justice the God of Order the preserver of humane society who detests of all tyranny cruelty oppression injustice out of his Philanthropie which brought the Sonne of his bosome from heaven to earth would never certainely in point of policy or conscience prohibit that which is the onely probable meanes and apparent remedy to prevent suppresse disorder tyranny cruelty oppression injustice yea confusion in the world and to preserve good order and humane society a truth so apparent that no rationall man can contradict it Therefore questionesse he never prohibited forcible necessary resistance of the highest powers and their instruments in cases of open unjust violence and hostile invasion made upon their people to ruine them or subvert their established government Laws Liberties Iustice Religion There being no other probable ordinary meanes left to any Kingdome Nation People to preserve their government lives Lawes Liberties Religion and to prevent suppresse or redresse tyrannie cruelty disorder confusion yea utter ruine when their Kings and Governors degenerate into Tyrants invading them with open force but onely defensive Armes prayers and teares alone without military opposition by force of Armes being no more able to defend a person City or Kingdome against Oppressing Princes and their Armies then against theeves Pyrates or common enemies whom they must and ought to resist as well with Armes as Orisons with Speares as well as Teares else they should but tempt the Lord and destroy themselves like those c Iewes and Gothes who would not fight upon the Sabbath and so were slaine by their enemies without resistance yea wilfully suffer the Common-weale to be subverted Religion extirpated Lawes trampled under feete their own posterities to be enslaved ruined without any opposition even in a moment For were it utterly unlawfull and no lesse than Treason or Rebellion in point of conscience for any subjects to take up Defensive Armes to resist the Kings army or forces consisting for the most part of Papists Delinquents deboist Athesticall persons of broken fortunes feared consciences and most irreligious lives I appeale to every mans conscience how soone these unresisted Instruments of cruelty would utterly extirpate our protestant Religion and common faith for which we are enjoyned earnestly to contend and strive Jude 3. Phil. 1. 27. 28. And shall we then yeeld it up and betray it to our adversaries without strife or resistance how sodainely would they ruin our Parliament Lawes Liberties subvert all civill order government erect an arbitrary Lawlesse tyrannicall Regency regulated by no Iawes but will and Iust how soone would they murther imprison execute our Noblest Lords Knights Burgesses best Ministers and Commonwealths-men for their fidelity to God their King and Country how many Noble families would they disinherite how many wives widdowes Virgins would they force and ravish what Cities what Countries would they not totally pillage plunder sack ruine consume with fire and sword how soone would our whole Kingdome become an Acheldama a wildernesse a desolation and the surviving inhabitants either slaves or beasts if not devils incarnate Yea how speedy might any private Officers Captaines Commanders by colour of illegall Commissions and commands from the King or of their Offices and all the notorious rogues and theeves of England under colour of being listed in the Kings Army if the people might not in point of Law or Conscience resist them with Armes who came armed for to act their villanies maliciously rob spoyle plunder murther all the Kings leige people without any remedy or prevention and by this pretext that they are the Kings Souldiers sodainely seise and gaine all the armes treasure forts ammunition power of the Realme into their possessions in a moment and having thus strengthned themselves and slaine the Kings faithfull subjects usurpe the crown it selfe if they be ambitious as many private Captaines and Commanders have anciently slaine divers Roman and Grecian Emperours yea sundry Spanish Gothish and Moorish Kings in Spain by such practises and aspired to their Crowns of which there are sundry such like presidents in most other Realmes to prevent redres which severall destructive mischiefes to People Kingdome Kings themselves God himselfe hath left us no other certaine proper sufficient remedy but a forcible resistance which all Kingdomes Nations throughout the world haue constantly used in such cases as I shall manifest more largely in the Appendix