blowes to hold his bands c. and the like But the Doctor in his Reply has thought of a new reason to prove Davids example extraordinary because else may private and singlemen do so too Answ not so David was not as every private man hee was anointed of the Lord one that fought the Lords Battells the great States-man in the Kingdome with whom were joyned Ionathan and many other chief of the Tribes therefore it followes not from David to every private man but to the Parlaiment rather who though not anointed as King and as Saul yet with some anointment from the Lord into the place of Magistracy especially being as the Dr. confesseth Co-ordinate with the King in Supremacy so farre as concernes Nomotheticks I said before if Davids example were extraordinary then hee had an extraordinary command for what he did If so how doth the Dr. say there is no command or warrant in Scripture for such a practice or kind of resistance To which the Dr. replieth as if all extraordinary warrants and instincts given to special persons should be written in Scripture Answ. So then this works of Davids which before was called by the Dr. a meere defence is now come to be a matter of special instinct though acts done by speciall instinct had not alwaies warrant from written Scripture before they were done yet being done and recorded in Scripture there is ground and written warrant for the lawfulnes of our actions upon the like occasions I did not say why then doth the Dr say there was no warrant in Scripture for David but why then doth the Dr. say there is no warrant or ground out of Scripture now for us to doe what we doe though it might be instinct then and without written Scripture yet it may be written warrant now Then whereas that Scripture is urged though not to take up Armes against our King as the Doctor suggests 1 Chron. 1219. Where it is said expresly that David went out to Battell against Saul the Dr. Replies Desperate shifesthat thesemen are put to when pretences and simulations must bee Scripture ground for Conscience It 's said before that David made shew â—f madnesse before King Achish Mr. Bridge might as well inferre therefore he was mad Answ. Will any else besides this Dr. make such an inference The Scripture faith totidem verbis that he went out to Battell against Saul that this was but a simulation is not said in Scripture but the Scripture doth not say that David was mad but that he fained himselfe so is there then the same reason of the one and the other The example of Vzziah is next to be cleered We find that the Priests are commended for valiant men because they thrust out K. Vzziah from before the Lord 2 Chron. 26. To which instance the Dr. saith that Uzziah the King was stricken with Leprosie and by the Law the Leper was to be put out of the Congregation and awell apart which is not consistent with Government therefore it is said of the King he was a Leper and dwelâ— in a severall house and Jotham his Sonne Reigned in his stead 2 Kin. 15 5. I shall ever give the Dr. the full weight of his Reason it seemes by this Answer that hee would have Conscience beleeve that the King was discharged from his Crowne by his Leprosie and â—p oâ—acto thereby dethroned Now see what Dr. Bilson saith directly contrary unto this Doctor Vzz ah saith he dwell a part in a house from others because of his Leprosie but you dâ—e not find that he was deprived of his Kingdome Jotham his sonne Governed his House and judged the people of the Land because the King might not be conversant amongst men by reason of his sicknesse but the Cronne still continued in the father though a Leper and Jotham began not his Reigne till his Father was dead Whom the Scripture calleth the King of Juda in the twenty yeere of his Reigne and last yeere of his life Thus Dr. Bilson And though our Doctor can with what conscience I know not joine these words together thus Hee was a Leper and dwell in a severall house and Jotham his sonne Reigned in his stead 2 King 15. 5. as if all these words were one and did touch one another in holy writ yet in truth they are part of two severall Verses and two other Verses comming betweene them as in the 5. Verse 't is said the King dwelt in a severalt house and Jotham the Kings son was over the Kings house judging the people of the land not Reigning in his stead as the Dr reads it then at the 6 and 7 Vertes the Scripture having spoken further of the King his deeds and death at the end of the seventh it is added and Jotham his son Reigned in his stead these words being annexed to his death as a consequent thereof and the Dr. takes them and annexes them to the 5 Verse at the mentioning of his Leprosie as if upon his Leprosie his Sonne Reigned whereas 't is plaine he only governed and not Reigned untill his Father died Here I cannot but wonder that the Doctor should so boldly venture to lay violent hands upon Scripture that hee may lead mens Consciences into his owne sentence But I hope the Consciences of those that feare God will take notice of such dealing as this and abhorre that sentence that must be borne up with such practices He would perswade us also that the Priests here are said to bee valiant men because of their home reproofe which they gave to the King or because of their withdrawing from him the holy things which hee was not to meddle with but let him shew us any one place of Scripture where valour being joyned with an expression of force as here it is it being said that they thrust him out doth only note faithfullnes in ones place by giving reproofe or the like At last the Dr. comes to his owne Arguments and labours to recrute them and first he tels us that none might blow the Trumpet for warre amongst the People of Israel but the supreme Magistrate and therefore the Parliament may not take up arms or blow the Trumpet for warre as now they doe To this Argument diverse Answers unanswered have been given yet hee is not satisfied but still replieth and I wonder that he should considering there is no such matter that I can find as hee alleadgeth in the 10. Chap of Numbers T is true the Lord speakes there unto Moses saying Verse 5 when yee sound an Alarm and ver. 6. when you blow an Alarm the second time and Verse 7. when the Congregation is to be gathered together yee shall blow and verse 9 If yee goe to warre in your Land yee shall blow an Alarm with your Trumpets but these words in the Hebrew are all in the plurall number shewing that the blowing of the Trumper belonged aswell to the State and Princes of whom he spake Ver. 4.
the people did not signifie the Kingly power already conferred but to be conferred upon him to wit when all being gathered together by Samuel to Mispah gave their consent and cryed out Let the King live He hath fouâ—d an example and proofe for thetrust of Parliement in Davids time 1 Cro. 13. 1 2. Because David consults with the Captaines and Leaders which were Officers â—ot of the King but Kingdome but those were Officers of the King and Kingdome meerly designed by him not the People and called by h m to that trust pag 43 44 True I have found an example indeed in Davids time for what I alledged Namely that there were then certaine Officers of the Kingdome not of the King onely and though under him yet were they with him trusted with the affaires of the Kingdome This also was the judgement of the Protestant Divines in France whose Testimonie I shall relate afterwards of lumus Josephus Brutus Zepperus Sigonius and many others Zepperus saith thus That in Saul David and Salomons time so before the Captivity the Kingdom of Israel was mixed with Aristocracie for it had a Senate of 70. or great Synedrim which sate at Jerusalem whose Iudges were called Princes who sitting by the King did dispatch the great affaires of the Kingdome unto whom was referred the choice of the King and High Priest and matters of War and other things greatly concerning the people Of this Synedrion Josephus saith Nihilagat Rex sine Senatorum sententia Yea these Senators were in such place with the King that they were called his friends brethren 1 Chron. 2. 2. And though the Dr. saies Those Officers in Davids time were designed by the King not the people Yet if we look to the originall in the first of Deut. 13. We â—inde that the people did first give them to Moses before he did make them Rulers for v. 13. Moses relating the first constitution of that Government saith I said unto you give mee wise men and understanding and known men among your Tribes and I will make them Rulers over you The English Translation readeth Take yâ—e wise men the Hebrew is give yee us as Montanus hath it when they had given them to Moses he saith v. 15. So I received them so is the Hebrew he would not make any rulers over them but such as he had first e c eived from them and they had given unto him and so though at the first it pleased God to appoint those Rulers or Councell of State called the Sanedrym or Synedrion whereupon Mendosa saith that they were equal to Moses being appointed by God as Moses was Numbers 11. 14 15 16. Yet that was by and with the consent and choice of the people not meerly by appointment of the King as our Doctor would Car. Sigoâ—ius will tell him out of the Tolmodists and other Divines that he had search'd into that this Sinedrion or Colledge of Elders did represent the Scepter that the Scepter it selfe did depend on it that none did judge the Tribe and the Scepter but this house of Judgement To this purpose Gerrara shewes that this Synedrion was chosen of the chiefe men of Israel in whom was power of judging controversies exercising of publique justice yea of choosing and deposing Kings And therefore of the Talmodist this Councell was called the house of Judgement or the house of the Scepter and publique Authoritie And Zepperus with Doctor Biljon saith this Synedrion continued with that people of God unto the time of Herod Iosepâ—us being witnes I presse not so much as these Authors speake of But whether there were not in those times of David Officiariâ— Regns wich were not meerly designed by the King and what inference I do make from thence let Conscience judge Againe whereas I argue from the being and nature of Parliament that if it hath not power to send for by force those that are accused to be tryed before them that should not be a Court of Justice seeing that even inferiour Courts have a power to force those before them that are to be tryed And if the Parliament may send one Sergeant at Armes then 20. then 100. then 1000 c. The Doctor Replies Therfore Inferiour Courts have a power to raise Armes Answer this followes not For though I say every Court hath power to force in the accused yet it must be in a way suitable Now this raising of Armes is not suitable unto an Inferiour Court but to the Parliament being a more Nationall and publike Court then any other is The Dr. tells us indeed that other Courts have their posse comitatus So the Parliament have their Orders to fetch and force in the accused which are established by law aswell as his posse Comitatus is But saith the Dr. I did not know before that all the Parliament Souldiers were Sergeants at Armes Answer how doth hee catch at the word and let the sence goe the sence scope and drift of the Argument was to shew that as they might send forth one who by force should fetch in the accused by the same reason they might send forth ten and by the same Reason that they may send forth 10 they may send forth 20 so 100 so 1000 so 10000 The Dr. puts off the Argument with a Jeere because hee hath no list to meddle with the Reason In the 45 Page hee would enervate the Testimonies of Divines which I brought to shew that all Protestant Divines were of our minde Let us see therefore what hee saith to them And first he begins with the Testimony of the Germane Divines and for that saith he The Testimony of the Centuriste speakes nothing to this purpose A short answer soon and â—â—sily given but why nothing to our purpose nay stay there the Dr. will keepe his Reason to himselfe I set downe therefore the Testimony againe and let men judge whether it bee to the purpose Governours say they in such things as are repugnant to the law of God have no power or 〈…〉 above other private men and they themselves commanding that which is evill have no power or immunitie above others Yea they themselves commanding that which is evill are as much bound to feare the Ordinance of God bearing the word for the punishment of vice for St. Paul Rom. 13. saith that God dia instance and ordaine a power both of defending that which is good and punishing that which is evill and hee commands that every soule and so the governours themselves should bee subject â—o this Ordinance of God if they would be defended by it and not by their wicked deeds makes themselves liable to punishment Of the French and Low Country Divines he brings no testimony saith the Dr. but for proose tels us ne know their practice so I for answer may returne him his owne words we know what hath been the practice of those Protestants and so they are parties interessed not so fit
THE TRUTH OF THE TIMES VINDICATED WHEREBY The lawfulnesse of Parliamentary procedings in taking up of Arms is justified Doctor Fernes Reply answered and the Case in question more fully resolved By WILLIAM BRIDGE Preacher of Gods word at great Yarmoth PSAL. 127. 1. Except the Lord keep the Citie the Watchman waketh but in vain Quaeso lector ut memor tribunalis Domini de judicio tuo te intelligens judicandum nec mihi nec adversario meo foveas neve personas loquentium sed causam consideres Hierom. Printed according to Order LONDON Printed by T. P. and M. S. for Ben Allen and are to be sold at his Shop in Popes-head Alley 1643. Errata IN the Frontispice for soveas read faveas In the Epistle for being asked read having asked P. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. for Truths of the time r. Truth of the times p 4 for there r. they p 5. for Althaâ—ius r. Althaâ—ius for Henomus c. r. Henonius Henning and Amisaus p 7. for yet r. yea p. 8. for {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} p 10. for duct a naturar dâ—cta naturae p. 13. for Rainervus r. Rainerius p. 13. for affect r. effect p. 14. for under r. into p 15. for oppose r. expose p. 15. for governed r. governing p. 26. for Junius Josephus Brutus read Junius Brutus Josephus p. 29. for ropos r. propos. p. 35 36. for dwell r. dwelt p. 37. for thats read its p 39. for Wisd. 22. r. Rev. 2. p. 39. for but passive r. not passive p 40. for if lawfull r. lawfull p. 41. for take of r. take heed of pag. 45. for to which r. which p. 45. for see will read so will p. 46. for Committe r. community p. 47. for that Prince r. the Prince p. 47. for being read bring for that that r. that it There are many faults escaped in the marginall Latine yet because the Latine is turned into English and the Authors cited I do not note those Errata TO THE RIGHT VVORSHIPFVLL The Knights and Gentlemen Deputie-Lieutenants of the County of NORFOLK Honoured Sirs GIve me leave to joyn you together in one Epistle whom God and your Countrey hath joyned together in one service It is not in my purpose to blazen your worth before the world your own actions speak you in the gate and wise men had rather do worthily then heare of it onely observing your unwearied labour of love for God and your Countrey I count it my duty to come forth and meet you with this pen-service in testimonie of my thankfull respects to you You read Numb. 25. when the wrath of God brake out against Israel that Phineas stood up and executed judgement and the wrath was not onely diverted but himself blessed yea the blessing was a blessing of peace though wrought out by the sword your like action in this time of wrath will carrie the like blessing on your selves and houses yet your work is rather to bring men to justice then to execute it Many blessed comforts wâ—it on your service First we read in Scripture but of one man so potent in heaven that he could command the Sun to stand still and he was a Souldier Joshua but of one man of whom it was said that he had an heart after Gods own heart and he was a great Souldier David but of one man of whom Christ gave that great testimonie I have not found so great faith no not in Israel And he was a Souldier too the Centurion thus haâ—h God honoured your calling Secondly your work is good for you are the Ministers of Reformation I read of a King of Meth sometimes in Ireland that being asked how certain noysome birds that came flying into that countrey and bred there might be destroyed Was answered thus Nidos eorum ubique destruendos The way to be rid of them was to destroy their nests Now for a long season many noysome birds have been flying over into this Kingdom and have bred here the work of these times is to destroy those nests of Jesuites and Jesuited persons and it is that work which now you are upon Though it cost some paines its worth your labour happie is that necessitie which leads to better things Thirdly your cause is just also agreeable to the Law of Nature for Conservatio sui ipsius est opus naturalissimum to the Law of God for David though not the representative body yâ—t lawfully took up armes for his own defence to the Law of the Kingdom for what more legall then that the Houses of Parliament should bring in Delinquents to triall and how can that be without Armes when the Delinquents betake themselves to their Armes The Schoolmen say three things concurre to a just warre First Jurisdictio indicentis and for that you have the Authoritie of Parliament which as one writes if you respect Antiquitie is of all Courts the most ancient if dignitie is of all Courts the most hononorable if authoritie and jurisdiction is of all Courts the most copious Secondly Offensio patientis and for that you have matter too much and your enemies too little the great cause of their armes is but some peece of prerogative if they pretend truly a cause infinitely beneath so unkind bloodie a war as this is Thirdly Intentïo boni convenientis and for that I dare say you are bellando pacifici your war being to prevent warre and your present bleeding to prevent some great sicknesse which this State would sink under Fourthly your Forces live and march under as many prayers as ever English Armies did you have preces armaâ—as and though Joshua fought valiantly Exod. 17. yet the prayers of Moses who was not in the fight got the field Fifthly If you do overcome you shall not make your selves slaves by your own victories we may truly say of some Dum vincunt victi sunt when they have overcome others they are slaves themselves your Religion Laws and Liberties stand all readie to reward your prowes And sixthly If you be overcome and die you die for God and your Countrey who can bring his life into a better market blessed are those that dye for the Lord so that word â— is rather to be read Rev. 14. 13. Wherefore as heretofore so now much more labour to hold forth the vertues of him that hath called you to this great imployment As Souldiers are more honoured then others so they should be more vertuous he had need carry much grace in his heart that doth daily carrie his life in his hand and your Souldiers should as well overcome the Countreys with their good examples as the Enemies with their swords When Joshua went out to battell against the Amalakites his men were all chosen or choice men Exod. 17. 9. And saith the Lord Deut. 23. 9 when the hoste goeth forth against thine enemie then keep thee from every wicked thing It is ordinarily observed that when the jews marched out
Parliament hath raised this Army by an act of judgement and jurisdiction not over their Prince but in regard of Delinquents so the same act may be a work of jurisdiction in regard of others and yet an act of preservation in regard of our selves The execution of any malefactor in an ordinary way of Law is both preservation to the State and a work of jurisdiction in regard of the offender so here yet I do not say it is a work of jurisdiction over our Prince but in regard of delinquents that are about him Dr. F. Mr. Bridge gives us proofes for this way of self-preservation from the Law of Nature it being naturall to a man and so to a communitie to defend it self And were this argument good then might private men and the people without the Parliament take up armes and resist for self-preservation is naturall to them Ans. It follows not because though I say every thing may defend it self by nature yet I say also it must do it modo suo naturae suae convenienti we say that all creatures do defend themselves and it is naturall so to do yet we do not therefore say that a beast defends himself in the same manner as a man doth or a man as a beast but in a way sutable to every nature Now if a private person be in danger to be oppressed by a Prince flying is more fit defence for him and therefore saith our Saviour If they persecute thee in one City flie to another but if the State be wronged and oppressed which is a publick grievance then the State and those that represent them are more fit to take up Armes for its preservation For Nature in generall teacheth self-preservation Nature specificated teacheth this or that preservation now the nature of a communitie and of a particular person are distinct and therefore though I say a community is to defend it self because sui tutela is naturall to every thing yet I do not say that a particular private person may ordinarily defend himself in that way which is most sutable to the communitie as the taking up of Armes is yet I suppose no moderate man will denie this that the Subjects though not invested with authoritie have a power to keep out an enemie from landing incase of forrain invasion yea though the Kings Officers should be negligent therein or so malitious and treacherous as to forbid them to defend themselves and their Countrey Secondly saith the Doctor He proves it by Scriptures 1 Chron. 12. 19. where the Word of God saith expresly that David went out against Saul to battell but he was Sauls subject at that time A desperate undertaking to make people beleeve this is expresse Scripture for subjects to go out to battell against their King But he should have added what is expressed there it was with the Philistines that he went out and that he helped them not for he did but make shew of tendring his service to Acisâ— Ans. Here I need give no other answer then repeat those words fully that he replyes to which were these which Scripture I bring not to prove that a Subject may take up armes against the King but that the Subjects may take up arms against those that are malignant about the Kings person notwithstanding the Kings command to the contrary For seeing that Davids heart smote him formerly for cutting of the lap of Sauls garment and yet it is said in expresse words in this text that he went out against Saul its likely that his intentions were against those that were evill and wicked about him Then the Doctor brings in another peece of my argument not the whole reason or the sense of it thus Be subject to the higher powers Rom. 13. but the Parliament is the highest Court of Justice pa. 3. To which he replies modo suo well assumed and so it is for is not the highest Court of Justice an higher power We grant faith the Doctor there is a subjection due to them and if he meant by the Parliament the 3. Estates concurring all manner of subjection is due unter them It 's well he will acknowledge any subjection due to the Parliament without the third estate And if any subjection then they have some authority but none they can have if not power to bring in the accused to be tried before them And if they have power to bring in 20 by force then 100. then 1000. then 10000. which cannot be done without raising an Army Then he undertakes sayes the Doctor to shew out of Scripture that Kings receive their power from the people and hath the ill hap to light on Saul David and Salomon for examples Ans. The Doctor hath the ill hap alwayes to misse the argument which lay thus If it be the duty of the King to looke to the safety of the Kingdome and that because he is trusted therewith by the Common wealth then if the Parliament be immediatly trusted by the Common-wealth with the safety thereof as well as the King though not so much then are they to looke to it and to use all means for the preservation thereof as well as the King But so it is that the King is bound to look to the safety thereof and that because he is intrusted therwith as was Saul David and Salomon who came to their government by the consent and choice of the people Whereupon the Doctor replies He hath the ill hap to light on Saul David and Salomon But it seems the Doctor had not the good hap to meet with these severall Authors which affirme that even these Kings Saul David and Salomon were chosen by the people If he had read or minded them he would not have imputed this as an ill hap unto me for to light on these examples I will give him but the testimony of Mendoza who though not of our judgement in this matter yet ingeniously confesses that with great probability Authors do reason for a popular choise of Saul David and Salomon Whereas saith Mendoza it is objected that Samuel by anointing Saul without any consent of the people saying the Lord hath anointed thee King over his heritage did thereby clearly shew that the regall power was conferr'd upon Saul not from the people but from God that is easily answered that that Vnction was not a signe of power already conferr'd but to be conferr'd as may be proved by the anointing of David whom Samuel anointed 1 King 16. 13. Dureing Sauls Raigne yea while he had many yeares to raâ—gnt Wherby it appeares that David did not receive regall power by that unction but by that which he had afterward by all the Tribes Elders when coming to Hebron they anointed David King over Israel Therfore that first unction was not the conferring the regal power but only a signification of this latter unction by which this Kingly power was to be derived or conveyed so also that first anointing of Saul before the consent of
after the people have chosen their magistrate they have resigned up their power to him An. But the people never created or received their Kings but upon certain Conditions which being manifestly broken and not kept those have power to abdicate who have power to create and this has alwaâ—es been in use amongst all the most famous Nations in the World the Israeltes Lacedemonians Romanes Danes Swedes Scotch Polonians and English Ob But if a Magistrate doe degenerate into a Tyrant as wee are not to be obedient to him so neither are we to resist him Answ That is onely understood of private men Object But David spared Saul though it were in his power to â—nth moff An. That is no way contrary to the doctrine delivered for David had many armed men about him whose help if need had required he would without doubt have used against all yet thus hee did having respect rather to his owne defence then his enemies offence This testimony tells us what hath beene the practise of all Nations the testimony of the Scots in their answer to Lisimacâ—us Nicaâ—our saith expresly that our doctrine is according to the judgment of all the Reformea Churches And if these testimonies will not yet prevaile with the Dr. I must leave him to his resolves hee tells us that our homilies are against us but let him produce any place out of the homilies where it is said that the two Houses may not take up Armes to bring armed delinquents to their Tryall Indeed the Homilies speake against Subjects taking up of Armes against their King so doe not the Parliament but to defend themselves and to bring Delinquents to tirall And therefore when the Dr. or other bring forth testimonies of Divines ancient or late to prove that Subjects may not take up Armes against their Prince they had as good say nothing that is not to our case but let them prove by testimonies that it is not lawful for the Parliament to take up arms to secure the Kingdome to bring accused Persons to tryall and to deliver the Prince out of the hands of Malignants and then they say something to us else it is but clamor not Reason At last the Doctor speakes somewhat of arbitrary government p. 46. which is no way any answer to the reasons that were given by me proving that his opinion raised the King to an arbitrary government onely he sets down his further sentence about arbitrarines eadem facilitate rejicitur qua affirmatur The Rest of that Section is either spent in naked Assertions or jearing expressions or seeming Answers to his other Answerers CHAP. 4. THe Dr. having spent some time upon his other Answerres at the 49. pag. he is pleased to returne to me where hee would prove that the people of Israel did not by any forceable resistance rescue Ionathan out of the hands of Saul which worke saies he was but set off with a souldier like boldnes Let the Doctor call this work what he please Saul the King had sworn that Jonathan should dre and the people sweare be should not dye and they being in Arms did rescue Ionathan saith the Text This rescue the Doctor calls in his first Booke a living violence and in his reply a setting off the matter with a Souldierly boldnes I hope the Doctor will give us leave to use the like termes if a Prince swear the death of some Parliamentary men who deserve not to die but to be preferr'd and the people rise up in Arms and rescue their Ionathans saying as we live they shall not die that have wrought this great deliverance for us this is no resistance it is but a loving violence and a setting off the matter with a Souldierly boldnes why may not we call this so aswell as the Dr. That But I appeale to all reason whether a rescue by men in Arms from those that have swornea mans death be not forceable resistance But say wee this is more then Prayers and teares which is th' only remedie allowed by the Doctor to which he replieth The Dr. had no where said though Mr. Bridge makes him often say so that Prayers and Teares is the only remedy left for Subjects but besides their cries to God he allowes them intercessions reproofes denyall of subsidies and aides I will not search into the Doctors Booke for every word take what he granteth here yet this souldierly boldnes of rescuing is more then Prayers teares reproofes or denialls of subsidies and aids which is all the remedy that he affordeth as he confesseth now Yet the Doctor is so full of this sentence still that in the 51. pag. of this book he saith that the Children of Israel being under the oppression of their Kings had no remedie they had was by crying to the Lord And againe in the same page saith all the remedie they had was by crying to the Lord so also in his first booke pag. 10. the people are let to understand I Sam. 8. II. how they should be oppressed under Kings and have no remedy left them but crying to the Lord Thus doe men forget themselves and what they have said whilest they contend against truth Then the Doctor comes downe to the example of David And whereas it is urged by us that David did take up Arms to defend himselfe from the violence of his Prince Saul the Dr. replies now as before that Davids example was extraordinary Well but when it is said that David having advantage of Saul did not lay hands upon him to cut him off as he might have done what if wee should say that Act of Davids was extraordinary would not the Doctor tell us that our Answer was but ordinary he tells us pag. 31. of his Reply that Conquest one of the meanesiby whch Godiranstates Kingdomes and that David being provoked by the King of Ammon brought tha people â—rder 2 Sam. 12. And that the Edomites were so brought under the Dominion of Judah What if we should give this Answer that these were extraordinary cases Would not the Doctor take it for a poore shifting Answer from us When we say any practice is extraordinary we must also prove by circumstance that there was an extraordinaries in the fact or else acquies in it for our example But be it so that Davids example was extraordinary is not our case now extraordinary Is Englands case ordinary hath it bin thus ordinarily that Arms have bin taken up against the Parliament and Delinquents kept from legall tryall by force of Armes has this bin for many yeares see how the Doctor helps himselfe by this extraordinary Answer He tells us in his first Book p. 8. that this work of David was a meer defence without all violence offered to Saul and is not this ordinarily lawfull for subjects to doe so much the Doctor grants it himselfe p. 9. of his first Book That personall defence is lawfull against suddaine and illegall assaults of the Prince himselfe thus farre toward his