Selected quad for the lemma: king_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
king_n	aaron_n	appertain_v	incense_n	42	3	10.7860	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

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

had delegated to Moses and Aaron without any injury or injustice at all once offered to them or any assault upon them Ergo marke the Non-sence of this argumentation no Subjects may lawfully take up meere necessary defensive Armes in any case to resist the bloody Tyrannie Oppression and outrages of wicked Princes or their Cavalleires when they make warre upon them to destroy or enslave them An Argument much like this in substance No man ought to rise up against an honest Officer or Captaine in the due execution of his Office when he offers him no injury at all Therefore he ought not in conscience to resist him when he turnes a theefe or murtherer and felloniously assaults him to rob him of his purse or cut his throate Or private men must not causelesly mutinie against a lawfull Magistrate for doing justice and performing his duty Ergo the whole Kingdome in Parliament may not in Conscience resist the Kings Captaines and Cavalleeres when they most unnaturally and impiously assault them to take away their Lives Liberties Priviledges Estates Religion oppose and resist justice and bring the whole Kingdome to utter desolation The very recitall of this argument is an ample satisfactory refutation of it with this addition These seditious Levites Rebelled against Moses and Aaron onely because God himselfe had restrained them from medling with the Priests Office which they would contemptuously usurpe and therefore were most severely punished by God himself against whose expresse Ordinance they Rebelled Ergo the Parliament and Kingdome may in no case whatsoever though the King be bent to subvert Gods Ordinances Religion Lawes Liberties make the least resistance against the king or his invading forces under paine of Rebellion High Treason and eternall condemnation This is Doctor Fernes and some others Bedlam Logicke Divinity The next is this Thou shalt not revile the Gods nor curse the Ruler of thy people Ex. 22. 28. Eccl. 10. 20. Curse not the King no not in thy thought and curse not the rich in thy bed-Chamber which is well explained by Prov. 17. 26. It is not good to strike Princes for equitie Ergo it is unlawfull for the Subjects to defend themselves against the Kings Popish depopulating Cavaleers I answer the first text pertaines properly to Judges and other sorts of Rulers not to Kings not then in being among the Israelites the second to rich men as well as Kings They may as well argue then from these texts that no Iudges nor under-rulers nor rich men whatsoever though never so unjust or wicked may or ought in conscience to be resisted in their unjust assaults Riots Robberies no though they be bent to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties as that the King and his Souldiers joyntly or severally considered may not be resisted yea these acute disputants may argue further by this new kinde of Logicke Christians are expresly prohibited to curse or revile any man whatsoever under paine of damnation Rom. 12. 14. Mat. 5. 44. Levit. 19 14. Numb 23. 7. 8. 2 Sam. 16. 9. Levit. 20. 9. c. 24 P 1. 14. 23. Levit. 20. 9. Prov. 20. 20. 1 Cor. 6. 10 1 Cor. 4. 12. 1 Pet. 2. 23. Jude 9. Ergo we ought to resist no man whatsoever no not a theefe that would rob us cut-throate Cavaleers that would murther us lechers that would ravish us under paine of damnation What pious profitable Doctrine thinke you is this All cursings and railings are simply unlawfull in themselves all resistance is not so especially that necessary we now discourse of against unlawfull violence to ruine Church and State To argue therefore all resistance is simply unlawfull because cursing and reviling of a different nature are so is ill Logicke and worse Divinity If the objectors will limit their resistance to make the Argument sensible and propose it thus All cursing and reviling of Kings and Rulers for executing justice impartially for so is the chiefe intendment of the place objected delinquents being apt to clamour against those who justly censure them is unlawfull Ergo the forcible resisting of them in the execution of justice and their lawfull authority is unlawfull the sequell I shall grant but the Argument will be wholy impertinent which I leave to the Objectors to refine The third Argument is this That which peculiarly belongs to God no man without his speciall authority ought to meddle with But taking up Armes peculiarly belongeth to he Lord. Deut 32. 35. Where the Lord saith vengeance is mine especially the sword which of all temporall vengeance is the greatest The Objector puts no Ergo or conclusion to it because it concludes nothing at all to purpose but onely this Ergo The King and Cavalleeres must lay downe their Armes and swords because God never gave them any speciall commission to take them up Or Ergo no man but God must weare a sword at least of revenge and ●hether the kings and Cavalleers Offensive or the Parliaments meere Defensive sword be the sword of vengeance and malice let the world determine to the Objectors shame The fourth is from Eccles 8. 2. 3. 4. I councell thee to keepe the Kings Commandment and that in regard of the Oath of God Be not hasty to goe out of his sight stand not in an evill thing for he doth whatsoever pleaseth him where the word of a king is there is power and who may say unto him what dost thou This Text administers the Opposites a double Argument The first is this All the Kings Commands are to be kept of all his Subjects by vertue of the Oathes of supremacy alleigance and the late protestation including them both Ergo by vertue of these Oathes we must not resist his Cavalleeres but yeeld our thoates to their swords our purses and estates to their rapines our chastities to their Lecheries our Liberties to their Tyrannies our Lawes to their lusts our Religion to their Popish Superstition and Blasphemies without any opposition because the king hath oft commanded us not to resist them But seeing the Oath and Law of God and those oathes of ours obleige us onely to obey the Kings just legall commands and no other not the Commands and lusts of evill Councellors and Souldiers this first Argument must be better pointed ere it will wound our cause The second this The king may lawfully do whatsoever pleaseth him Ergo neither are He or his Forces to be resisted To which I answer that this verse relates onely unto God the next antecedent who onely doth and may doe what he pleaseth and that both in heaven and earth Psal 135. 6. Psal 115. 3 Esay 46. 10. not to Kings who neither may nor can doe what they please in either being bound both by the Laws of God man and their Coronation Oathes perchance the oath of God here meant rather then that of supremacie or alleigance to doe onely what is lawfull and just not what themselves shall please But admit it

meant of Kings not God First the text saith not that a king may lawfully doe what he pleaseth but he doth whatsoever pleaseth him Solom●n himselfe committed idolatry built Temples for Idolatrous worship served his idolatrous wives Gods married with many idolatrous wives greivously oppressed his people c. for which God threatned to rent the kingdome from himself as he did the ten Tribes from his son for those sinnes of his David committed adultery and wilfully numbred the people and what King Jeroboam Manasseh Ahab other wicked Kings have done out of the pleasure and freedome of their lawlesse wills to the infinite dishonour of God the ruine of themselves their posterities Kingdomes is sufficiently apparent in Scripture was all therefore just lawfull unblameable because they did herein whatsoever they pleased not what was pleasing to God If not as all must grant then your foundation failes that Kings may lawfully doe whatsoever they will and Solomons words must be taken all together not by fragments and these latter words coupled with the next preceeding Stand not in an evill matter and then Pauls words will well interpret his Rom. 13. 4. But if thou doe that which is evill be afraid for he beareth not the sword in vaine for he is the minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon them that doe evill So that the genuine sence of the place is and must be this Stand not in an evill matter for the king path an absolute power to doe whatsoever he pleaseth in way of justice to punish thee if thou continue obstinate in thy evill courses to pardon thee if thou confesse submit and crave pardon for them Ergo the king and his Cavalleeres have an absolute power to murther plunder destroy his Subjects subvert Religion and he and his Forces must not herein be resisted is an ill consequent from such good premises The third is this Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him what dost thou that is expostulate with censure him for doing justly as Iob 34. 17. 18. 19. expound it Ergo the king or his Forces may not be resisted in any case they might rather conclude Therefore neither Kingdome nor Parliament nor any Subject or person whatsoever ought to demand of the king to what end or why he hath raised Forces and Armed Papists against the Parliament and Protestant Religion These Court-Doctors might as truely conclude from hence If the king should command us to say Masse in his Chappell or our Parishes to adorne Images to turne professed Masse-priests c. to vent any Erronious Popish Doctrines to pervert the Scriptures to support Tyrannie and lawlesse cruelty we must and will as some of us doe cheerefully obey for where the word of a King is there is power and we may not say unto him what dost thou If a King should violently ravish matrons defloure virgins unnaturally abuse youth cut all his Subjects throates fire their houses sacke their Cities subvert their liberties and as Bellarmine puts the case of the Popes absolute irresistible authority send millions of soules to hell yet no man under paine of damnation may or ought to demande of him Domine cur ita facis Sir what doe you But was this the holy Ghosts meaning thinke you in this place If so then Nathan was much to blame for reprehending king Davids Adultery Azariah and the 40. Priests who withstood King Vzziah when he would have offered incense on the incense Altar and thrust him out of the Temple telling him it pertaineth not to thee Vzziah to burne incense to the Lord c. Were no lesse then Traytors John Baptist was much over-seene to tell King Herod It is not lawfull for thee to have thy brothers wife The Prophet who sharpely reprehended Amaziah for his Idolatry and new altar 2 Chron 25. 15. 16. was justly checked by the king Eliiah was to be rebuked for telling Ahab so plainely of his faults and sending such a harsh message to King Ahaziah Elisha much to be shent for using such harsh language to King Jehoram 2 Kings 3. 13. 14. yea Samuel and Hanani deserved the strappado for telling King Saul and Asa That they had done foolishly 1 Sam. 13. 3. 2 Chron. 15. 9. The meaning therefore of this Text so much mistaken unlesse we will censure all these Prophets and have Kings not onely irresistible but irreprehensible for their wickednesse is onely this No man may presume to question the kings just actions warranted by his lawfull royall power this text being parallel with Rom. 13. 1. 2. 3. 4. What then Ergo None must question or resist his or his Cavalleers unjust violence and proceedings not the Parliament the supremest Iudicature and Soveraigne Power in the Kingdome is a ridiculous consequence yet this is all this Text doth contribute to their present dying bad cause The 5. is that usually objected Text of Psal 105. 14 15. Touch not mine annointed Ergo the King and his Cavaleers must not be so much as touched nor resisted I wonder they did not as well argue Ergo none must henceforth kisse his Majesties hand since it cannot be done without touching him neither must his Barber trim him nor his Bedchamber-men attire him for feare of high Treason in touching him And the Cavaleers must not henceforth be arrested for their debts apprehended for their robberies and murthers neither must the Chyrurgion dresse their wounds or pock-soars or otherwise touch them so dangerous is it to touch them not out of fear of infection but for fear of transgressing this sacred Text scarce meant of such unhallowed God-dammee● Such conclusions had been more literall and genuine then the first But to answer this long since exploded triviall Objection not named by Dr Ferne though revived by others since him I say first that this Text concernes not kings at all but the true anoynted Saints of God their Subjects whom kings have been alwayes apt to oppresse and persecute witnesse Psal 2. 2. c. Act. 4. 26. 27. Act. 12. 1 2 3 with all sacred and Ecclesiasticall Histories ancient or moderne This is most apparent first because these words were spoken by God to Kings themselves as the Text is expresse Psal 105 14 15. 1 Chron. 16. 20 21. He suffered no man to do them wrong but reproved even KINGS for their sakes saying even to king themselves namely to king Pharaoh an king Abim●lech Gen. 12. 10. to 20. Chap. 20. and 26 1. to 17. 29 Touch not mine Anointed and do my Prophets no harm Therefore not meant of kings Secondly because these words were spoken directly and immediately of Abraham Isaac Iacob their wives and families as it is evident by Verse 6. the whole series of the Psalme which is Historicall the forecited Texts of Genesis to which the words relate the punctuall confession of Augustine and all other Expositors on this Psalm Now neither they