Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	david_n	king_n	saul_n	2,575	5	9.7545	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A55033	Scripture and reason pleaded for defensive armes: or The whole controversie about subjects taking up armes Wherein besides other pamphlets, an answer is punctually directed to Dr. Fernes booke, entituled, Resolving of conscience, &c. The scriptures alleadged are fully satisfied. The rationall discourses are weighed in the ballance of right reason. Matters of fact concerning the present differences, are examined. Published by divers reverend and learned divines. It is this fourteenth day of Aprill, 1643. ordered by the Committee of the House of Commons in Parliament concerning printing, that this booke, entituled Scripture and reason pleaded for defensive armes, be printed by Iohn Bellamy and Ralph Smith. John White.	Palmer, Herbert, 1601-1647.; England and Wales. Parliament. House of Commons.	1643 (1643)	Wing P244; ESTC R206836	105,277	84

though helping them in and having promise of all favour and then at Marlborow and great cruelties to those that were led away Prisoners and this since the Kings Proclamation against plundring and since that Newbury and many other Townes formerly and of late in Bark shiere Oxford shiere Surrey Buckingham shiere will have little cause to believe the Doctors intelligences or assurances that all protestations that come in the Kings name may be trusted And whereas he urges that we may not raise an evill thought against the King Eccl. 10. What shall we say to those men unlesse that of David concerning Sauls Councellours 1 Sam. 24. That at least they deserve to be accursed that force men either to distrust or to suffer ruine because they have power and will to breake that which we would trust the King in most gladly and desiredly if he had no such men about him I have no desire nor will to prosecute particulars further But the Doctor abuses his Readers to cast an oblique aspersion as if the Parliament had any thoughts of contending for a new frame of Religion which deserves no answer so grosse a slander it is And then 2dly to insinuate plainly that the 19. Propositions were urged as so necessary as unles they were granted the Kingdom must be imbroyled in a civill warr and the reliefe of Ireland neglected The fore-named Petition by the Earle of Holland clears that sufficiently and the Petition too that the Earle of Essex should have presented or sent but the King would receive none from him The rest of the Doctors book is but recapitulations Rhetoricall of what he hath said before and an Answer to the instance of Libna's revolt which I will be no justifier of because so little is said of it in Scripture To which I have only these things to adde 1. Though Absalom which he mentioned before and I slipt did falsly calumniate David what ever petty neglect might be in some officers as appears by 2 Sam. 8. 1 Ch. so being a comly person which takes much with the multitude a strange f●atterer of all that came for Justice what ever their cause were 2 Sa. 15. and the heire apparant of the Crown might invegle the people into a Rebellion Yet neither is this any thing like to the causes of complaint or suspitions that we have had and have still nor yet is there any probability that a people justly governed should by Parliamentary Declarations be armed against their King As besides all other Arguments appeares by the small assistance of armed men any Country hath yeelded to the Parliament even where they think them in the right in the cause and themselves too in danger to be plundered 2. If the Parliaments actions in all things about their defence cannot be excused or justified specially by those that see not the whole of their actions and much lesse the reasons of them yet their consciences that see the justnes of the action for the main of defence and grounds to believe their Protestations of their intentions in the defence are not bound to be Neuters much lesse to assist the King against them because they are not or cannot be satisfied in this or that particular For then scarce any warre might lawfully be joyned in 3. In speciall for the sufferance of so many Sects to vent their doctrins with such liberty and to commit unsufferable out-rages upon the worship of God 1 Hath not the Parliament declared against Brownists Anabaptists in the first Remonstrance 2. Have not some Sectaries bin punished as he that made the new Creed was he not imprisoned 3. How many scandalous and innovating Ministers have bin complained of and yet few of them questioned and those not fully censured scarce one by both Houses the Doctor will not lay to their charge the suffering of such which yet he may with more reason as being offendors of longer continuance and more danger 4. The truth is partly the multitude of offendors at first complained of and partly for neare a yeare and an halfe of late their owne extreame danger by the Malignant parties getting strength since the Irish rebellion broke out and so multitude of businesses over-whelming them have hindred that Justice which else those Sects and out-rages the Doctor mentions would have found and may yet in due time if legally proved 5. And if he will say some speciall men favoured them in the very Houses he cannot say more then may be made good of others favouring Superstitions Arminianisme Socianisme and even Popery it selfe Yet this were most unjustly charged upon the Body of either House and much lesse on both And when it shall please God that the Consultation of Divines shall meet for which they have more then once passed the Bill for his Majesty to confirm it will I doubt not appeare to all the world that they never ment to suffer any such opinions or practises as are truly dishonourable to the true Reformed Protestant Religion as even in the mean time the Orthodoxisme and Moderation of the Members of that Assembly generally known to all that know the persons may be a sufficient pledge among them all there being very few that are liable to any pretence of exception for Sects and perhaps none at all for countenancing any such out-rage as the Doctor cryes out upon 6. In fine the worst of the Parliament charged upon them with any shadow in matter of Religion is but omissions or delayes which are but Moats to the beames which the Doctor overlooks in their Adversaries of old and still Who have made stables of Churches but they Who have burned and troden under foot Bibles but their Partisans of Ireland Not to insist on their horrid blasphemies which if Gods word be true as they will one day find it makes our Land groane and mourne under them If a conscience comes to weigh these in the ballance with the Parliament let it if it dare be charitable to the Cavaliers and their Army so as to believe Religion is like to be defended by them when the Parliament intends to ruine it I will say no more to the Doctor but this one thing that a sober conscience that peruses his whole Treatise will wonder what kind of conscience his is that Rhetorizes so for charity on the one side and wholly neglects it on the other telling us more then once that though we lay downe our lives for our Religion it is nothing if we have not the charity he cals While himselfe with all confidence charges the Parliament with many grievous faults against Religion Allegiance Lawes and Liberties and Liberties and discredits all their Protestations and Declarations to the contrary as if he thought that as his great Text Rom. 13. speaks only in his conceit of Monarchs so 1 Cor 13. related also to them only No resisting that higher power but all charity to him what ever he doe or say But as for the Parliament their power is of no regard

by Reassuming as I said before a taking of the whole power from him to themselves but onely for the particular Case in hazard and for the present necessity And now to begin with what he first mentions the Derivation of power I must tell him that he forges what he before complained of in others that they confounded the power it selfe with the person and the Qualification I am sure he doth so here if ever man did Hee before granted the Person and Qualification from men and then they approved of God and more then that no man pleads to be derived nor more to be forfeited plead not for so much nor he Pa●liament neither But only the Qualification for he particular Case of danger and till that danger may be suffici●ntly secured Yet here now at first to oppose the Forfeiture but of this particular which is only in question now before us he denies the power to be from the People and appeales to what he hath cleared which is onely by his owne saying but not altogether as hath beene shewed that the Power it selfe is from God But for all that if no more can be said against the persons forfeiting his reigning Power and specially in the Qualifications of it even for ever it may undoubtedly be forfeited and so re-assumed all of it which is more then I say Secondly but he will prove that though the People have this Power absolutely which himselfe hath more then once granted of the Designation of the Person and Qualification yet could they not have right to take it away REPL. The King will have no cause to thank him for his undertaking as well because he doth it not with any great strength as also because hee hath hereby provoked men to dispute even this Case which no way needed since the Parliament never pretended to this Right in generall but rather disclaimed it First he saith Many things which are altogether in our disposing before we part with them are not afterward in our power to recall REPL. True but some things are and that both if conditions be not observed and even at our owne pleasure A King makes some Officers for terme of life others quamdin se bene gesserint others a●● ante bene placite To the latter hee may send a Writ of Ease at his pleasure and every day it s in his power to recall their Authority To the second their offices are sure without power of recalling till they are legally convicted of misbehaviour To the third as long as they live their Authority is firme and no power of recalling it wholly Yet even such may bee hindred from some Administrations by Accusations by and apparency of Crimes making it unfit for them to be trusted in the particular We imagine not the People to have power to recall that Regall Authority at their pleasure we argue not that they have power to recall it wholly upon any Case of Mal-administration All that we plead for is power to administer a part of it upon necessity which he will not administer for good but rather for evill And there are not many things that were altogether ours and in our disposing before we part with them but are still so farre ours as to use them againe in our necessity for that turne at least though there are some Secondly But he will prove this to be one of those that are not after in our power to recall especially saith he such in which there redounds to God an interest by the Donation as in things devoted though after they come to be abused REPL. 1. Grant this true in referrence to the Power of recalling them wholly which yet is not universally true as will appeare straight yet may there be power enough to administer so much as is of necessity A Wife is tyed to her Husband by the Covenant of God so called Prov. 2. by the Ordinance of God more ancient and no lesse strong then that of Politick Government She cannot recall wholly her Husbands Authority over her though shee was once altogether at her disposing to choose or another or none to be her head All the goods of the Family are his in Law and not here but by his leave and order Yet for her necessity she may by the Law of God and conscience administer so much of the goods as is fit and secure her Person from his violence by absence though that ordinarily be against the Law of Marriage and the end of it or any other meanes of nccessary defence But secondly it is not altogether true that there is no power or recalling any thing devoted to God Hezekiah took off the gold from the Doores of the Temple and the Pillars which he had overlaid and all the silver in the house of the Lord to pay the King of Assyria his demanded Ransome 2. Kings 18.14 15 16. If the Doctor will not owne this Act of Hezekiah I am sure he will that of David taking the hallowed Bread which was not for any by Gods Law to eate but onely the Priests This was devoted to God and not so much as abused and by him assigned to a speciall use yet from that diverted and lawfully without question And now I appeale to all Consciences Whether the necessity of saving a Kingdome from the subversion of Religion Lawes and Liberties be not greater then Davids necessitie was And if I will have mercy and not sacrifice did justifie Davids act will it not theirs who in a necessity use or administer the power of the Militia or Armes which ordinarily is only to be admieistred by the King Neither will Abimelech the Priests consenting to David alter the Case for it was devoted to God and but in necessity he might not have consented nor David accepted Necessity then recalled that particular Bread through devoted So necessity may recall this parcell of power in question Thus the Doctors ground failes him for our Case yet 3. see what he adds so although it were as they would have it that they give the power and God approves himselfe oft hath said and cannot deny but they give the Person his power and if they take it from his person yet they may leave it to his Heire but wee argue not for so much yet because the Lords hand and his oyle also is upon the Person elected to the Crowne and then he is the Lords Annointed and the Minister of God those hands of the People which were used in lifting him up to the Crowne may not againe be lift up against him either to take the Crowne from his head or the Sword out of his hand this true inform'd Conscience will not dare to doe REPL. 1. Is not Gods hand upon a Judge Is not hee the Minister of God Is not a King bound to God and to his People to appoint Judges who may lesse be spared in their Power then the Monarch himselfe for what is his Power when an Infant Is not the Kingdome then administred

not one of the Parliament shall be put to death unlesse prooved guilty according to Law notwithstanding any Proclamation of them to be Traitors or condemning them to death illegally 3. And thirdly as it cannot be thought but if Saul had further attempted by himselfe or any of his followers to assault Jonathan the people would have actively resisted him and them even with armes in Jonathans defence The second Example is Davids resisting of Saul sc by gathering a band of 600. men and offering to have kept Keilah against Saul but that God told him the Keilites would have betrayed him That he sin'd not in it appeares 1. By his owne pleading his innocence even to God in his Prayers and Psalmes as farr as concern'd the busines between him and Saul 2. Himself after this pleades it to Saul 1 Sam. 24 26. and cals God to witnes that he had not transgrest at all against him 3. God himselfe discharged David from all notorious sinne excepting the matter of Vrijah 1 Kin. 1.5 Now had not his Resistance been lawfull it had been most notorious Rebellion and Treason 4. Fourthly even our Doctor condemns it not and therfore all resistance is not unlawfull much lesse damnable as he often thunders But this Example sticks with him and therfore he makes a four-fold answer 1. Davids guard that he had about him was only to secure his person against the cut-throats of Saul if sent to take away his life Reply But this could not have bin done without killing divers of them if they had assaulted him which had then bin no murther but a just defence and execution of Justice So farr himself grants lawfull 2. But he sayes it was a meer defence without any violence offer'd to Saul Therfore he still gave place as Saul pursued and did no act of hostility to him or any of his Army when they were in his power 1 Sam. 26. Reply He was not strong enough to encounter Saul in the field who had divers thousands 3000 mentioned 1 Sam. ●1 against his 600. Wisdom bids him fly as long as he could rather then fight 2. Conscience forbids him to kill Saul so I grant it doth any Subject though having the King at any such advantage But that he hurt none of his followers 1 Sam. 26. was again an act of wisdome and we need not goe to conscience for a reason of it He had only one man with him Abishai and had he offered to kill any of the Army how soone might this in all likelihood have wakened the rest and so he had endangered his own life to little purpose For he could not in probability have killed many and what had that done to his cause and defence afterward Yet also I hold not that in cold blood one or many that are upon the defensive may lawfully kill sleeping enemies or such waking farther then appears at least in some sort necessary or much advantagious to the defence and prejudiciall to the opposites But if killing as many as David could have kill'd that night himselfe and Abishai would have given hopes of ending Sauls pursuit of him and have made peace I doubt not but he would and might have done it as well as keep Keilah against him But this intent of Davids is denied For 3. The Doctor saith It is only an uncertaine supposition not fit to ground conscience in this great point of resistance Repl The Text declares it as certainly as may be unlesse it had said so in undeniable termes For 1. David contents not himselfe to aske God whether Saul would come down but what the Keilites would doe To what end that but that he meant to stay if they would stand to him 2. When God answers him only about Sauls comming he askes the second time which shewes clearly his mind ran upon staying there 3. When God told him they would betray him the Text then saith he and his men went whether they could goe which shewes they were now disappointed of their purposes and hopes of staying there and must now shift for themselves where they could When none of this will elude this example of Davids resistance the Dr. adds a fourth Answer which will strike it dead 4. To this and all other demeanours of David in his standing out against Saul We say his example was extraordinary for he was designed and annointed by the Lord to succeed Saul therfore he might use an extraordinary way for safe-guarding his person Repl But in these few words there seeme to be many errours and inconvenient expressions Doth he not imitate those that to illude Davids reason why he durst not kill Saul Say Saul was extraordinarily annointed and designed King by God and so upon him violent hands might not be laid but this holds not for other Kings elective or successive by humane Laws I do not for my part thinke their shift sufficient but beleeve it utterly unlawfull even because this is asserted by David in reference to the office of Saul as I believe being written for our learning to teach us how to carry our selvs towards all soveraign Princes But I say if he wil elude Davids act of resistance he encourages them including his forbearance Let him consider it 2. Is not what he speaks of a successour dangerous to his own Position for if Davids right of succession authorized him at all to resist may not a successor plead the like authority if in danger which yet he will not grant unles he mean to overthrow his own assertion 3. It seemes to me a strange way of answering Scripture examples unles upon stronger necessity then any thing the Doctor hath alleadged as will appeare by the scanning of all his Arguments and Texts against resistance that such a thing was extraordinary when no such thing can be gathered out of the Text. I know many men have this faculty of interpreting who yet will not suffer it against their owne assertions but with me except in undoubted failings or duties The ancient Rule holds good Praxi● sanctorum est interpres Praeceptorum David did thus against Sauls violence therfore this is not contrary to but an Interpretation of the honour due by the 5 t. Commandement 4. It is so farr from being good which the Doctor saith that contrarily Davids Unction ought rather to have strengthned his faith not to have used a way of defence which in another had been by the Doctors saying rebellious and damnable What a disparagement is this to Faith and even to Gods Honour that his annointed shall be safeguarded for so long together only by a way which in all others is abominable Credat Judaeus non ego Davids Faith then and Gods Honour in his preservation proves the meanes both lawfull and ordinary And if so then much more is it lawfull for many persons and most of all for a State-Representative in this manner to defend themselves and resist A third Example alleadged by the Doctor is the Priests resisting the

a body together in the market place and be assaulted by such a number or a quarter so many they must not offer to resist but let them cut all their throates because forsooth in the body politicke one part must not be set against the head and another part of the Whole 4. He grants the body politicke may defend it self against an outward force but not as now one part c. Reply Then belike if the King imploy Danes or Irish against the Parliament and Kingdome they may resist them and is not the case so now at least in part but not if he imploy only English-Cavaleers Surely the mighty wits of the Earle of Strafford who was condemned mainly for counselling to bring in nine thousand Irish to reduce this Kingdome wanted our Doctor to have advised him to forbeare that designe and only Arme English and then the peoples hands and consciences should have been tyed from resisting by the Doctors and his fellow-Chaplaines Divinity and must have yeelded Religion Lawes and Liberties and neckes too for feare of dissolving the whole politick body by defence 5. When the state of the Question by himselfe set is when a Prince is bent to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties What dissolution of the Whole can bee feared by defence and resistance against such intentions worse then that or so bad While therefore he talkes of such defence tending to the dissolution of the Whole he perverts the Question or else forgets that the subverting of Religion Laws and Liberties cannot be accounted lesse then a dissolution of the whole politicke body 6. I say therefore by an Argument à f●rti●ri retorting his words upon himself If a private person may defend himselfe a gainst illegall Assaults of the Kings Messenger or even of himselfe as before then much more the representative Body of a State and even any considerable part of the Body with them or even without them to save Religion Lawes and Liberties against an intent to subvert them And if against outward forraigne Force then much more against homebred unnaturall Members who exceed rather then come short of any outward Force in rage and c●uel●y tending to the subversion of the Whole and all such unnaturall and gangren'd members are justly and necessarily cut-off for the safety of the whole though their cutting o● cannot be without a maime and lamenesse at least for the present I say for the present for new members will grow up in the politicke body in time though never in the body naturall 2. He hath yet another Answer for us in these words Personall Defence may be without all offence doth not strike at the order and power that is over us as generall resistance by Armes doth which cannot be without many unjust violences and doth immediately strike at that order which is the life of the Common-wealth And this makes a large difference 'twixt Elisha's shutting the doore against this Messenger and their shutting-up the way against the King by armed men Repl 1. If some personall defence may be without all offence yet not all And he at least seems to have yeelded all personall defence lawfull so the Kings person may not be violated 2. Whose fault it is originally that generall resistance by Armes cannot be without offence Are the Plunderers not in fault but the defenders must be counted guilty And whose hand is it that strikes immediately at the order which is the life as he saith of the Common-wealth The defendants of Religion Laws and Liberties Or theirs who intend and attempt to subvert them all 3. How doth personall Defence if offensive to the Messengers assaulting strike lesse at the power over us then generall or common defence doth Or rather neither doth since the power over us as intended and ordained both by God and man is for the preserving and defending not subverting Religion Laws and Liberties and so defends the true power strikes not at it 4. If generall Defence cannot be without many unjust violences no more is any warre at all in a forraigne Country de facto But as the impossibility to restrain these wholly do's not make all warrs unlawfull so much lesse doth it a necessary defence in case of such danger to Religion Laws and Liberties 5. Whose fault is it that these unjust violences cannot be avoided the Assaylants or the defendants Let God and conscience be Judge To Him we feare not to appeale and while the conscientious Defendants labour as much as morally they can to prevent and rectifie all such unjust violences whether the danger of some acting them who must be imployed in the defence altogether forbids the generall defence to the utter subversion of Religion Laws and Liberties 6. And this indeed makes a large difference betwen Elisha's case and ours He defended but one against a sudden passionate command He pleades against malicious deliberate intents for defence of many the generall of all faithfull Prophets Magistrates Princes and all with Laws and Liberties for all posterity Let Heaven and Earth judge who is the wrong-doer and whether the defendants may not as Innocents call for justice as well as David against Saul 1 Sam. 24. 26. vide locum As for the Parliaments power to conclude of the Kings intentions without the Spirit Prophetick of Elisha I wonder we had not here also that Elisha defended himself by an extraordinary way being an extraordinary person as well as David before that belongs to the third Proposition handled in his third Section thither I refer it Only saying that since the printing of the Doctors book some bloud hath bin shed by the Kings Counsell of war at Reading in a pretended legality So at Oxford some others have lately been condemned with pretence of Law and what shall become of them who knows whether they will put them to death in terrorem to others Or reserve them for feare some of their party should be served with the same sawce Finally whereas he saith the King desires not any punishment should be inflicted on any that oppose him then what a legall tryall shall adjudge them to which no good Subject ought to decline Reply This were credible if we were assured what is meant by a legall tryall and that it did signifie not a tryall by such Judges and Juries as are apparantly partiall or if we could forget that the six Members accused of High-Treason in January last offered themselves to be tryed and the Parliament offered to try them in Parliament according to their Priviledges being Members of their Houses and from thence forth the Accusation was laid a sleepe till of late notwithstanding the reiterated importunities of both Houses of Parliament who also in one of their Declarations or Petitions to the King urged a Statutes how such accusations ought to be managed and conclude to this effect that by Law and Justice this ought not to be denyed And thus I have vindicated the Examples of Scripture by the Doctor alleadged for us and from

in maintaining that of May. 26. do professe to be unlawfull 2. If hee meane deposition of the King or which is more change of the Monarchy into Aristocracy or Democracy I deny that this may proceed necessarily or Rationally from a necessary defence unlesse the Dr. will undertake to prove that the state by no resistance or defence can bee safe without deposing their King or taking away Monarchs which hee neither will nor can as I durst undertake against him if that were now the Qu in hand which I hope shall never be Though sure there is no such temptation to it as to see Tyranny acted and all sober necessary defence cryed out upon as Rebellion all bloodshed in such defence murther and the end of it damnation And when Religion if ever it should bee is onely laid wast by the countenance of such doctrines improved as the Jesuite Advised then if a people should be greatly oppressed in their Civill liberty there might be some danger they would deny the Drs. grounds and all their allegiance and respect to Monarchy together And I dare be bold to say it Monarchy never received such a blow since States were as the Counsellors of Princes and Court-Chaplaines have provoked men to give it Because Kings must be absolute and People meer slaves formerly in doing and now in suffering 2 He saies This power of resistance when used and pursued is accompanied with the evills of a Civill Warr c. Reply 1. Whose fault is that Suppose the people that is a great many Papists would rebell unlesse the King and Parliament would subvert Religion and bring in popery and take away all the Lawes that displeased them must they doe this to avoid the evills of a Civill Warre and if not then neither must the Parliament or People sacrifice Religion Lawes and Libertie to the feare or danger of a Civill Warre No war so bad as the Parisian massacre or that of Ireland The King of France commanded the one the Irish people the Rebells acted the other In a Civill warre wee may save something and after recover all Under a Tyrannie not to be resisted we have nothing have lost Religion Laws and Liberties and have neither goods nor Lives Wives nor Children that we are sure of a day to an end He that rationally preferres such a Tyranny before a civill War surely hopes upon some speciall grounds that Tyranny will be none to him who pleads so well for it's indempnity but rather an advancement to him much good may it doe him 3 He saith the people may be discontented even with the Parliament and so it will come to ●ade and Tyler and overthrow all government Reply 1. I have satisfied this Objection for the maine of it already 1. That it is lawfull for the people to resist even the Tyranny of a Parliament when altogether outrageous as in our Quest●on not else 2. That the principles of defence cannot be drawne to a necessary change of the Government Of which I adde 2. Reasons One that the defence will suffice without it if wisely managed to secure the safety of the State and Religion so morally For still men some or other must be trusted and those that discredit themselves a while may merit a trust againe afterward Enough for their honour and comfort and not too much for the Common-wealth and they need not be trusted as before till they do merit a trust againe And yet no opposition much lesse change of government 3. The next government suppose each shire as the Dr. talkes a Common-wealth and all governed by a Folkmoot is still liable in all reason to mischiefes as bad or worse then were in that goverment rejected And this they among the people that are not growne barbarous and bruitish by suffering Tyranny and losse of Religion and Liberties by the Drs principles may be made so sensible of that they will never offer to attempt such a madnesse 3. Make a people Religious as much as man can make them and let them enjoy the comfort of doing that which is good as St Paul speakes of Rulers praising such And then the Rulers need not feare the multitude of them though some will ever be wicked that they will Rebell and change the Government The People indeed by Absaloms flattery Rebelled against David a righteous and just Ruler But there was more then ordinary in that GOD threatened it to him for his adultery and murther They did not so to the great Reformers Asa Iehosaphat Hezekiah Iosiah specially yet questionlesse they 2. offended very many for the Princes and People as I noted before on a speciall occasion were very bad even in their times Some Papists as did rebell against King Edward the 6. and some against Queen Elizabeth But both soon and easily subdued GOD will not suffer a just Prince or State to be troden under foot David was humbred not overthrown and men will still be found to take thei● parts As then St. ●aul bids Christians doing that which is good not feare the powers he exhorts to submit to and not to resist that is legally ruling by Civill laws under God So I may say to Rulers Kings and Parliaments doing well Ruling according to GODS Ordinances they need not feare the power of Resisting Tyranny in the peoples hands which I say againe Though people have often used it and prevailed against Tyrannous Governors yet never did they prevaile against Just Rulers to Depose them or much lesse alter the Government Tyranny then helped forward now by the Doctors Principles will be onely that that in a despaire will drive People to Cantoning and Folkmoots if any thing will and not at all our Position of a sober necessary Defence The Reasons that the Dr. hath brought againh Resistance are so far from being the Apostles Insinuations that they are wholly unsufficient to discredit it with Reasonable and unpartiall Men to whom next under GOD we Appeale His conclusion Ergo repeating that because some must be trusted therfore Ergo the K is still I must tell him most unreasonable when his case supposes he will not discharge his trust but is bent to subvert Religion Laws and Liberties So perpeatually the Dr. doth or will forget the State of the Qu. The King ought ordinarily to be trusted and a just King a David is worth 10000. nay 100000. of us his Subjects but the will and Lust of such a Tyrant as the Qu. speakes of is not to be satisfied upon one Ionathan or Naboth the meanest of those thousands yet it must be if he must still be trusted when he is bent upon extreame Tyranny What the Dr alleadges further of the Oathes of Allegeance and Supremacy and the late Protestation prejudices not defensive Resistance no more then Scripture and Reason hath done The Oathes of Allegeance and Supremacy are onely to the Kings Legall power and Authority which no man disputes against The Protestation is to defend as far as lawfully I may according