Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	david_n	king_n	saul_n	3,246	5	10.1257	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56211	The soveraigne povver of parliaments and kingdomes divided into foure parts· Together with an appendix: wherein the superiority of our owne, and most other foraine parliaments, states, kingdomes, magistrates, (collectively considered,) over and above their lawfull emperours, kings, princes, is abundantly evidenced, confirmed by pregnant reasons, resolutions, precedents, histories, authorities of all sorts; the contrary objections re-felled: the treachery and disloyalty of papists to their soveraignes, with their present plots to extirpate the Protestant religion demonstrated; and all materiall objections, calumnies, of the King, his counsell, royallists, malignants, delinquents, papists, against the present Parliaments proceedings, (pretended to be exceeding derogatory to the Kings supremacy, and subjects liberty) satisfactorily answered, refuted, dissipated in all particulars. By William Prynne, utter-barrester, of Lincolnes Inne. It is on this second day of August, 1643. ordered ... that this booke ... be printed by Michael Sparke ...; Soveraigne power of parliaments and kingdomes	Prynne, William, 1600-1669.	1643 (1643)	Wing P4087A; ESTC R203193	824,021	610

warre upon them to destroy them Not to trouble you with Histories of Stagges and other beasts which have killed men th●t chased them in their owne defence of which there are infinite examples in the Roman and Spanish Histories in those Amphithreatricall sports and spectacles wherein men encountred and fought with Lyons Tygers Beares Buls and other savage B●asts I shall onely recite some few examples even of Kings themselves who have beene slaine and devoured by such beasts as they have chased Mad●● King of Britain as Polycronicon Fabian Grafton and others record being in his disport of hunting was slain of the wilde beasts he pursued when he had reigned 40. yeares so was his sonne King Mempris slaine and destroyed in hunting in the same manner Merind●● King of Brittaine was devoured by a Sea monster which he encountered and Basilius the 33. Emperour of Constantinople hunting a Stag of an extraordinary greatnesse and thi● king to cut off his necke with his sword the Stagge ranfiercely at him gored him with his hornes on which he tossed him bruised his entralls whereof he dyed some few dayes after and had beene slaine immediately on the beasts hornes had not one there present drawne his sword and cut off his girdle by which he hung on the hornes to whom he gave a very ill requitall for this loyall service other stories of kings slaine by beasts in their owne defence occure in story and examples of kings slaine by men in and for their preservation are almost innumerable that of our king Edmond is observable among others who as our Historians write being at a feast at Pulkers Church on Saint Augustines day espied a theefe named Leof whom he had formerly banished sitting in the Hall whereupon he leapt over the Table assaulted Leof and plucked him by the haire of the head to the ground who in his owne defence wounded the king to death with a knife hurt many of his servants and at length was himselfe hewen all in peeces But that of our King Richard the 1. is more remarkeable who being shot in the arme with a barbed Arrow by one Peter Basil or Bertram Gurdon as others name him at the siege of Chaluz Castle in Aquitain which rebelled against him the Castle being taken and the king ready to dye of the wound commanded the person that shot him to be brought into his presence of whom he demanded What hurt he had done him that provoked him to this mischiefe To whom he boldly replyed Thou hast killed my father and my two Brothers with thine own hand and now wouldest have slain me take what revenge thou wilt I shall willingly endure what ever torture thou canst inflict upon me in respect I have slaine thee who hast done such and so great mischiefe to the world The king hearing this his magnanimous answer released him from his bonds though he slew the rest and not onely forgave him his death but commanded an hundred shillings to be given him If then bruites by the very law of Nature have thus defended themselves against kings who have violently assaulted them even to the casuall death of the assailants Why men by the selfesame Law may not justly defend themselves against the unjust assailing warres of their Princes and Armies without Treason or Rebellion exceeds my shallow understanding to apprehend and I doubt those very persons who now plead most against it onely to accomplish their owne pernicious designes would make no scruple of such a necessary defensive wars and resistances lawfulnesse were the case but really their own and those Papists and Cavalieers who now take up armes against the Parliament the supreamest lawfull power in the Realme and their owne native Country without checke of Conscience would doubtlesse make no bones at all forcibly to resist or fight against the King himselfe should he but really joyne with the Parliaments Army against them and their designes there being never any Souldier or Polititian but those onely who were truely sanctified and religious that made any conscience of fighting against yea murthering of his naturall king not onely in a lawfull defensive warre but in a Trayterous and R●bellious manner too if he might thereby advantage or promote his owne particular interests as is evident by the councell and speech of Davids souldiers and King Saul himselfe 1 Sam. 24. 4. 5. 6. 7. 18. 19. 21. by the words of Abishai to David 1 Sam. 28. 8. 9. 23. 24. by the Councell of Achitophell which pleased Absolon and all the Elders of Israel well 2 Sam 17. 1. 2. 3. 4 and the infinite number of Emperours of Kings which have beene trayterously and rebelliously slaine without any just occasion by their own Souldiers and that in a meere offensive not defensive way above halfe the Roman Grecian and German Emperours dying of such assassinations or poysonings very few of them of meere naturall deathes as the Histories of their lives declare Eighthly It is in a manner agreed by Historians Polititians and Divines that if a King will desert the defence and Protection of his people in times of warre and danger and neither ayde nor protect them against their enemies according to his Oath and Duty they may in such a case of extremity for their owne necessary defence and preservation desert him who deserteth them and elect another King who can and will protect them from utter ruin Vpon this very ground the Brittons of this Nation after many hundred yeares subjection to the Roman Emperors rejected their yoake and government when they refused and neglected to defend them against the barbarous Picts and others who invaded them when they had oft craved their assistance electing them other Patriots So the Spaniards being deserted by the Roman Emperors and left as a prey to their enemies abandoned their government and elected them Kings of their owne to protect them which they justified to be lawfull for them to doe And in like manner the Romans and Italians being forsaken of the Emperour Constantine when they were invaded by Aistulfus King of the Lumbards Elected Charles the Great for their Emperour and created a new Empire in the West distinct from that of Constantinople in the East which Bishop Bilson himselfe concludes they might lawfully doe in point of conscience So Childerick being unfit to governe and unable to repulse the enemies of the French which invaded his territories thereupon by the advise of Pope Zachary and of a whole Synod and Parliament in France they deposed Childericke and elected P●pin for their King who was both able and willing to protect them Vpon this very ground the Emperours Charles the third and Wencestius were deposed as being unable and unfit to defend and governe the Empire and others elected Emperors in their steeds Thus Mahomet the blinde King of Granado was in the yeare 1309. deposed by his owne Brother Nobles and Subjects who were discontented to be governed by a

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 be guiltlesse The Lord forbid that I should stretch forth my hand against the Lords Annoynted The Lord delivered thee into my hand to day but I would not stretch forth mine hand against the Lords Annointed How wast thou not afraid to stretch 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 A●mes 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 justviolent 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 Iehu 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 Saul 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 Ceremony 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 ●o in their own necessary defence If no● then one Subject may not repulse the unjust violence of another in an elective kingdome if by possibility he may afterwards 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 away his life And if so 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 flight 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

reasons for it as satisfied both Howses witnes their answers to infinite Petitions yet extant among the Parliament records Therefore the King now is as much obliged thereto as they Seventhly If the King in point of law should have an absolute negative voice in denying his assent to publike Bills of meere right and justice then he should have power by law to deny justice and right and to doe wrong and iniustice to his people a prerogative which neither God himselfe nor any lawfull Monarch ever yet chalenged but renounced with greatest detestation I read in Plutarch that when a flatterer said to king Antigonus that all things were honest and iust to Kings he answered only indeed to Kings of Barbarians but to us honest things are to be accounted for honest only just things for just And that Acrotatus gave the like answer to his parents when they pressed him to do an uniust thing Quo●iam vult is me optima ag●re optimū aute●● est cum privato tum multo etiā magis Principiid quod est justum agam qu●●ultis quae viro dicitis detrectabo Yea our law expresly denies the king any such uniust prerogative by these unquestionable maximes the King neither can nor ought by law to do any wrong seeing he is Gods Vicar and the fountaine of Iustice. Et hocsolum Rex NON POTEST FACERE quod NON POTEST INIVSTE AGERE which our law-books make no defect of power but one of the highest branches of the Kings Prerogative for confirmation whereof I shal only cite one notable Record 7. H. 4. Rot. Parl. Num. 59. The Commons complained that by the favour of Ordinaries divers incumbents were outed of their benefices by superinstitutions upon presentations of the King contrary to the statute in that case provided and were denied a Scire faci●s without a speciall licence or command of the King first obtained to the great offence of God and against reason and law BECAVSE SVCH AN ACT CANNOT BE ANY PREROGATIVE AT AL IN OVR LORD THE KING WHICH IS DEROGATIVE TO THE EXECVTION OF RIGHT AND IVSTICE Wherefore they petitioned the King that he would be pleased to grant and command the Chancellor to deliver a writ of Scire facias to every of his Leiges who are outed of their benefices or possessions by the foresaid title of the King and that thenceforth the Chancellors shall be bound to deliver by authority of their Offices this Writ of Scire facias at the sute of the parties and further to doe right to the parties without suing to the King and without other warrant from him To which the King gives this answer The King wills that the said statute bee firmly held and kepe and farther willeth and granteth that if hee presents to any benefice which shall bee full of any Incumbext that the Presentee of the King shall not bee received by the Ordinary to such a benefice untill the King hath recovered his presentment by processe of Law in his owne Court and if any Presentee of the King bee otherwise received and the Incumbent outed without due Processe as aforesaid the said Incumbent may commence his sute within one yeare after the Induction of the Kings Presentee or later And further the King wills that no ratification granted for the Incumbent after that the King hath presented and taken his sute shall bee allowed pending the plea nor after the judgement given for the King but that such judgement shall bee fully executed as reason demands L●e here the Commons and Parliament affirme and the King himselfe subscribes thereto That the King neither hath nor yet can have any Prerogative at all which is derogative or any impediment at all in the execution of Right and Justice and disclaime a negative voyce or power in him in granting a scire facias to particular Incumbents unduly outed of their Living by a pretended prerogative power against Reason and Law Therefore à fortiori the King by his prerogative neither hath nor can have any absolute Negative voice at all to hinder the passing of publike Bills presented to him by both Houses for the due execution of right and iustice and the weale peace or safety of the whole Kingdome That speech of King Zed●kia● to his Princes though in a bad case is an undoubted verity here Behold he is in your hands FOR THE KING IS NOT HE THAT CAN DOE ANY THING AGAINST YOU and likewise of King David to his people 2 Sam. 18. 3. 4. WHAT SEEMETH TO YOU BEST I WILL DO In one word as it is no impotency in God but a part of his owne divine prerogative that he cannot possibly ly that he cannot deny himself that he is immutable and changeth not that he cannot do injustice And as it was the Apostles highest priviledge 2 ●or 13. 8. We can do nothing against the truth but for the truth So it is no note of impotency but of highest Soveraignty in our Kings that in all Bills of publike Right and Common Iustice they have no Negative voice or power at all to withstand or deny their passing for then they should have a prerogative to deny common Right and Iustice and so to doe publike injustice which God himselfe whose vicegerents they are is uncapable of and never derived to them I will close this reason with that memorable speech of that great heathen Emperour Iulius Caesar which he somtimes used at Rome in the Councell-house Touching all other affaires that are to be taken in hand for your sake I am both your Consul and your Dictator but as touching any wrong to be done to any man I am as a private man without office Eighthly Our Kings have ever claimed this as an absolute duty from their subjects in Parliament to grant them such speedy free and competent ayds subsidies customes for the necessary defence of themselves and the Kingdome and support of their royall estates as the urgency of their publike warres and affaires required and the subjects though they have sometimes denied subsidies to their Princes upon reasonable causes and excuses alleadged by them expressed in our Historians yet have always held it their BOUNDEN DUTY to grant such ayds in Parliament when and sometimes before they have been required and have really done it without refusall when they saw just cause to grant them as all the old and new Acts for the grant of Customes Subsidies Dismes Quindismes Tonnage and Poundage Polemoney with other such aides in all our Kings-Reignes abundantly evidence Therefore the King who is as much obliged by oath and duty to aid his subjects and provide for their common protection weale peace ease as they are to provide for His and the Kingdomes safety is by like reason as much obliged in duty not to deny them such publike Acts as they are not to deny him such publike aides Ninthly Kingdomes and Commonweales were existent before Kings for there must be

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 Armed violence and oppressions of their P●inces 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 ran together in multitudes ●o 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 example 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 there 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 butch●ries 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 ●alsely 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 lawfull 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 ●imply 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 deny all 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 is 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 Officer be an absolute Tyrant equall in Monarchie to the great Turke himself and ●aramount 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 King and Monarch every subject worse than a Turkish slave and exposed to as many uncontrolable Soveraignes as there are Souldiers in the Kings Army be their conditions never so vile their qualitie never so mean and the greatest Peeres on the Parliaments party must be irresistably subject to these new absolute Soveraignes lusts and wills Twelfthly if all these will not yet satisfie Conscience in the Lawfulnesse the justnesse of the Parliaments and peoples present forcible resistance of the Kings Captaines and Forces though Armed withan illegall Commission which makes nothing at all in the case because voyd in Law there is this one Argument yet remaining which will satisfie the most scrupulous malignant opposite Conscience That necessary forcible resistance which is Authorised and Commanded by the Supreamest lawfull power and highest Soveraigne Authority in the Realme must infallibly be just and lawfull even in point of Conscience by the expresse Resolution of Rom. 13. and our opposites owne confession who have no other Argument to prove the Offensive warre on the Kings part

bitterly the inhabitants thereof because they came not out to the helpe of the Lord to the helpe of the Lord against the mighty with this Corollary so let all thine enemies p●rish O Lord but let them that love thee be as the sunne when it goet 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 yeares 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. Eighthly by the example of Iepthah who after that God had sold the Isra●lites 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 Iudg. c. 11. And so cast off their yoake Ninthly By the practise of Sampson who after God had delivered the Israelites 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 vass●lage 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 ●edifragous 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 ●ntring 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 in●o 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 Ke●lah 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 vouchsafed 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 a rose and departed out of Keilah an● went wheresoever they could goe and it was told Saul that David was escaped from K●ilah 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 went whithersoever 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 rockes strong holds wildernesses where Saul pursuing them they still declined him but had he and his army ever assaulted them no doubt they would and might lawfully have defended themselves else why did they joyne themselves in a body why retire to strong holds and places of advantage why twice urge David to kill Saul in cold blood when he did not actually assault him but came casually unawares within his danger Why did David himselfe say even when he spared his life when he was a sleepe 1 Sam. 26. 10. As the Lord liveth the Lord shall smite him or his day shall come to dye or he shall descend into battell and perish but that if he had given him battle he might have defended himselfe against him though Saul should casually or wilfully perish in the fight And why was David so importunate to goe up against him with King Achish to the battle wherein he perished 1 Sam. 29. were resistance of him in case he assaulted him and his Forces utterly unlawfull This precedent of David then if rightly weighed is very punctuall to prove the justnesse of a defensive warre of which mor● anon and no evidence at all against it Eleventhly by the practise of the

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 hath 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 incens● 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 Iohn 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 El●iah was to be rebuked for telling Ahab so plainely of his faults and sending such a harsh message to King Abaziah Elisha much to be shent for using such harsh language to King Iehoram 2 Kings 3. 13. 14. yea Samuel and Hanani deserved the strappado for telling King Saul and Asa That they had done foolishly ● 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 ●esisted I wonder they did not as well argue Ergo none must henceforth kisse his Majesties hand si●ce 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 Chyrurgi●n 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. ● 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 sak●s saying even to king themselves namely to king Pharaoh an king Abimelech 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 Te●ts of Genesis to which the words relate the punctuall confession of Augustine and all other Expositors on this Psalm Now neither they nor their wives nor their children clearly were actuall much lesse anointed Kings For first they lived long before the government of kings was erected among the Israelites of whom Saul was the first 2. They had no kingdom nor territories of their own when these words were uttered but were strangers in the Land going from one Nation and Kingdom to another sojourning obscurely like Pilgrims and Strangers upon earth in Egypt and Gerar under King Pharaoh Abimelech and other Princes not as kings but subjects and pri●ate men as Verse 12. 13. Gen. 12. and 20. and 26 Chap. 36. 7. Chap. 37. 1. Deut. 23. 7. Hebr. 11. 13. resolve Thirdly They were but very few men in number Verse 12. Genesis 34. 30. they were Masters onely of their own small families and that under forraign Kings therfore doubtlesse no kings at all Fourthly this was spoken of these Patriarchs Wives and Families as well as of themselves and they certainly were no kings unlesse you will have kingdoms consisting onely of kings and no subjects at all Verse 12. 14. Gen. 12. 15. to 20. Chap. 20. 2. to 17. Chap. 26. 11. Chap. 34. 30.

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 nor 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 h● 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 Soveraingne 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 assaults 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 assailants 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 of 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 quarrell had been Treachery and impiety in a Son-in-Law a Servant a Subject a Successour 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 Soveraign 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 iustly with safe consciences have forcibly defended themselves against Saul and his Army had they been assaulted by them in their own Trenches is a trascendent 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 himself against his violence though he might not murther him now in his sleep when he did him no harm 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 Philistines to the battell against Saul wherein he perished 1 Sam. 29. unlesse we will taxe David for a notable Hypocrite and dissembler unanswerably evidenceth 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 treacherously 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 s●y him by his own command Not that resistance of him in the open battell was unlawfull in point of conscience Other answers 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 bad me kill thee but mine eye SPARED THEE and I said I will not put forth my hand against my Lord for he is the Lords anoynted Moreover my father see yea see the skirt of thy Robe in my hand for in that I cut off the skirt of thy Robe and KILLED THEE NOT know thou and see that there is neither evill nor transgression in mine hand and I have not sinned against thee yet thou 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 righteousnes 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 tribulation 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

the Ammonites co●selled and overruled him out of overmuch suspition to abuse Davids messengers sent to him in love And in the 1 Kings 22. 47. There was then no King in Edom a Deputy was King the kingdom appointing a Deputy then to rule them in stead of a king and giving him royall authority And in the 2 Kings 8. 22. 2 Chron. 21. 8. In the dayes of Ioram Edom revolted from under the hand of Iudah which had conquered it and MADE A KING OVER THEMSELVES and though Ioram smote the Edomites who encompassed him yet they revolted from under the hand of Iudah till this day The electing and constituting of a king being in their own power See Gen. 23. 3. to 20. and c. 34. 20. to 25. to like purpose These being all Pagan Kings and States I come to the Israelites themselves wherein for my more orderly proceeding and refutation of the many grosse erronious Assertions of * Court Doctors and Royallists touching the estate and Soveraignty of their Kings whom they would make the world beleeve to be absolute Monarchs subject to no Laws to derive all their royall authority from God alone and no wayes from the people to be meerly hereditary and elective to be above all their people irresistible in their Tyrannicall wicked proceedings and no wayes subject to their Realms and Congregations overruling controll much lesse to their defensive oppositition or deprivation I shall digest the whole History of their Kings and Kingdoms Iurisdictions and power into these ensuing propositions which I shall clearly make good out of Scripture as I propound them in their order First That the originall Creation and Institution of the Israelites Kings and Kingdoms proceeded onely from the power and authority of the people and that solely by Divine permission rather then institu●ion This is most apparent by Deuter. 11. 14 15. When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee and shall possesse it and dwell therein and shalt say I WILL SET A KING OVER ME like as ALL THE NATIONS THAT ARE ABOVT ME THOV SHALT in any wise SET HIM KING OVER THEE whom the Lord thy God shall chuse one from among thy brethren SHALT THOV SET OVER THEE THOV MAIST NOT SET A STRANGER OVER THEE which is not thy Brother Where God himself by way of prophesie of what afterwards should come to passe expresly declares first that the primary motion of changing the government of the Iew● from Iudges and an Aristocracy into a Kingdom should proceed from the peoples inclination as the words and shalt say I will set a King over me c. import Secondly that the authority to change the Government into a Regality to creat and make a King resided in and the authority of the King proceeded meerly from the people as the words I will set a King over me Thou shalt set him over thee four times recited in two Verses manifest beyond dispute Thirdly that all Nations about them who had Kings had the like power to create and make their kings as the words Like as all the Nations that are about me witnesse All which is evicently confirmed by Iosephus Antiqu. Iudaeorum l. 4. c. 8. by Carolus Sigo●ius de Repub. Hebraeorum l. 7. c. 3. Bertram Cunaeus Schikardus and divers Commentators on this Text The History of the change of their State into a Kingdom and of their Iudges into kings● added to this Prophesie and precept will leave no place for any scruple We read in the 1 Sam. 8. that the people growing weary of Samuels government who judged them by reason of the ill government of his sonnes who tooke Bribes and perverted judgement thereupon ALL THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL GATHERED THEMSELVES TOGETHER and came to Samuel unto Ramah and said unto him Behold thou art old and thy sons walk not in thy wayes now MAKE VS A KING TO IVDGE VS LIKE ALL THE NATIONS But the thing displeased Samuel when they said Give us a King to judge us and Samuel prayed unto the Lord And the Lord said unto Samuel HEARKEN VNTO THE VOYCE OF THE PEOPLE IN ALL THAT THEY SAY VNTO THEE for they have not rejected thee but they have rejected me that I should not reign over them According to all the works that they have done since the day that I brought them out of Egypt even unto this day wherewith they have forsaken me and served other gods so do they also unto thee Now therefore hearken to their voyce howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them and shew them the manner of the King that shall reign over them And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a King and he said This will be not ought to be the manner of the King that shall reign over you he will take your sons and appoint them for himself c. and ye shall be his servants and ye shall crie out in that day because of YOVR KING WHICH YE SHALL HAVE CHOSEN YOV and the Lord will not ●ear you in that day Neverthelesse the people refused to obey the voyce of Samuel and they said Nay BVT WE WILL HAVE A KING OVER VS that we also may be like all the Nations and that our King may judge us aud go out before us and fight our battels And Samuel heard all the words of the people and rehearsed them in the ears of the Lord And the Lord said unto Samuel Hearken unto their voyce and make them a King After which when God had appointed Saul to be their King Samuel called the people together unto the Lord in Mizpeh and recapitulating the great deliverances God had done for them added And ye have this day rejected your God who himself saved you out of all your adversities and tribulations and ye have said unto him Nay BVT SET A KING OVER VS c. And Samuel said unto all the people See ye him whom the Lord hath chosen that there is none like him among all the people And all the people shouted and said God save the King After which he expostulated again with them thus And when ye saw that Nahash King of the Children of Ammon came against you ye said unto me Nay BVT A KING SHALL REIGN OVER VS when the Lord was your King Now therefore behold the KING WHOM YE HAVE CHOSEN AND WHOM YE HAVE DESIRED c. that ye may perceive and see that your WICKEDNESSE is great which ye have done in the sight of the Lord IN ASKING YOV A KING And all the people said unto Samuel Pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy God that we die not for we have added unto all our sins this evill TO ASK A KING Which compared with Hos. 13. 10 11. I will be thy King where is any other that may save thee in all thy Cities and thy Iudges of whom thou saidst GIVE ME A KING AND PRINCES I gave thee a King in mine anger and tooke him away in my wrath

sonne of Nebat thereupon when all Israel saw that the King hearkned not unto them the people answered the king saying What portion have we in David neither have we inheritance in the son of Iesse to your tents O Israel now see to thine own house David so Israel departed to their tents stoned Adoram who was over the tribute whom Rehoboam sent to appease them Whereupon Rehoboam made speed to get him into his Chariot to flee to Ierusalem So all Israel fell away from the house of David to this day and calling Ieroboam unto the congregation made him King over all Israel there was none that followed the house of David but the tribe of Iudah onely Vpon this revolt when Rehoboam was come to Ierusalem he assembled all the House of Iudah with the tribe of Benjamin an hundred and fourescore thousand chosen men which were Warriers to fight against the house of Israel to bring the Kingdome again to Rehoboam the sonne of Solomon But the Word of God came unto Shemaiah the man of God saying speake unto Rehoboam the sonne of Solomon King of Iudah and unto all the house of Iudah and Benjamin and to the remnant of the people saying Thus saith the Lord Yee shall not goe up nor fight against your brethren the children of Israel return every man to his house For this thing is done by mee They hearkned therefore unto the Word of the Lord and returned to depart according to the Word of the Lord. Behold here an experimentall forfeiture of a kingdome and translation of the major part of it to another family for Solomons idolatry executed by the peple through Gods appointment which being fore-threatned in the generall by God himselfe to David and by David to Solomon in case he transgressed predicted by way of menace to Solomon and Ieroboam by God himselfe and his Prophets after Solomons transgression executed by the people by Gods speciall direction and approbation and thus owned and justified by God in the peoples behalfe after the execution when Rehoboam would have made war against them for this revolt must certainly be acknowledged not only a ●ust and warrantable action in respect of God himselfe but likewise of the people unlesse we will make God himselfe the Author and approver of rebellion By all which it is apparant that Solomon and Rehoboam held their Crownes onely upon condition from God the breach whereof might and did forfeit them to the people in some measure And so did Ieroboam too hold the kingdome of Israel newly erected by the people after this revolt upon the conditions of obedience already mentioned which being violated by his setting up 2 calves in Dan and Bethel out of an unwarrantable policy to keep the people from returning to Rehoboam if they went up to Ierusalem to worship this thing became sin to the house of Ieroboam even to cut it off and destroy it from off the face of the earth 1 King 13. 34. For Ieroboam committing idolatry with the Calves Ahijah the Prophet sent him this sharp message by his wife 1 K. 14. 7 8 9 10 11. Go tell Jeroboam Thus saith the Lord God of Israel for as much as I exalted thee from among the people and made thee prince over my people Israel and rent the Kingdom away from the house of David and gave it thee ye● thou hast not been as my servant David who kept my Commandements and who followed me with all his heart to do that onely which was right in mine eyes but hast done evill above all that were before thee for thou hast gone and made thee other gods and molten images to provoke me to anger and hast cast me behinde thy backe Therefore behold I will bring evill upon the house of Ieroboam and will cut off from Ieroboam him that pisseth against the wall and him that is shut up and left in Israel and will take away the remnant of the house of Ieroboam as a man taketh away dung till it be gone Him that dieth of Ieroboam in the the Citie shall the dogs eat and him that dieth in the field shall the fowls of the ayre eat for the Lord hath spoken it Moreover the Lord shall raise him up a King over Israel who shall cut off the house of Ieroboam in that day Neither was this an unexcuted commination for Ieroboam dying and Nadah his sonne succeeding him both in his kingdom and idolatries wherewith he made Israel to sinne Baasha by Gods just judgement conspired against him slew him reigned in his stead and when he reigned he smote all the house of Ieroboam so that he left not to him any that breathed according to the saying of the Lord which he spake by his servant Abijah because of the sins of Ieroboam which he sinned and which he made Israel sin by his provocation wherewith he provoked the Lord God of Israel to anger After which Baasha walking in the wayes and sins of Ieroboam notwithstanding this exemplary judgement of God on him and his posteritie the word of the Lord came to Iehu sonne of Hannani against Baasha saying Forasmuch as I exalted thee out of the dust and made thee Prince over my people Israel and thou hast walked in the way of Ieroboam and hast made my people of Israel to sinne to provoke me to anger with their sins behold I will take away the posterity of Baasha and the posteritie of his house and will make his house like the house of Ieroboam the son of N●bat him that dieth of Baasha in the City shall the dogs eate and him that dieth in the field shall the fowls of the Ayre eate which judgement was actually executed upon his evill sonne king Elah whom Zimri the Captain of his Chariots slew as he was drinking himself drunk in the house of Arza Steward of his House and reigned in his stead and assoon as he sat in his Throne he slew all the house of Baasha he left him none that pissed against the wall neither of his kinsfolks nor of his friends Thus did Zimri destroy all the house of Baasha according to the word of the Lord which he spake against Baasha by Iehu the Prophet for all the sinnes of Baasha and the sins of Elah his son by which they sinned and by which they made Israel to sinne in provoking the Lord God of Israel to anger witb their vanities King Om●i and Ahab his sonne going on in the sinnes of Ieroboam serving Baal to boot persecuting Gods prophets putting Naboth most injuriously to death for his Vineyard by Iezabels instigation and setting himself to work evill in the sight of the Lord above all that were before him Hereupon the Prophet Elijah tells him Thus saith the Lord Behold I will bring evill upon thee and will take away thy posterity and will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall and him that is shut up and left in Israel and will make thine house like the house

the Venetians by pretext of a certain imaginary adoption which without force had been plainly ridiculous to have taken the Kingdom of Cyprus Nor yet doth the Donation of ●onstantine to Pope Sylvester hinder for this Chaffe seemed absolete long since to Gratian and is damned to the fire Not the donation of Lewes the godly to Pas●hall to wit of Rome with part of Italy because Pius gave that which he possessed not and no man resisted But Charles his Father willing to subject the Realm of France to the German Empire the French resisted him by law and if he had gone further they prepared to resi●● by force Not that Solomon as we read delivered twenty cities to Hiram King of Tyre for he did not give them but pawned them as a Creditor till he paid him and within a short time recovered them which appears out of the Text Moreover also they were barren grounds tilled by Reliques of the Heathens which he receiving again from Hiram gave them at last to the Israelites to be tilled and inherited Neither can this more hinder that in certain Kingdoms this condition perchance doth not so expresly intervene betweene the King and his people for albeit it were not at all yet it appears by the law of Nations that Kings are not subverters but Moderators of the Republike that they cannot change the right of the Commonwealth by their pactions that they are Lords onely when they take care of their Pupils that they are to be accounted no other then Guardians and that he is not to be esteemed a Lord who spoils the City with liberty and selleth it like a slave Not finally that certain Kingdoms are gained by Kings themselves for they acquired not Kingdoms by their owne but by publike hands forces treasures now nothing is more consonant to reason then that those things which are gotten by the publike riches and common dangers of the Citizens should not be alienated without common consent which holds place even amongst Theeves themselves he destroyeth humane society who doth the contrary Therefore though the French have by force seized on the German Empire and they also on the Realm of France yet the same law holds in both In sum at last we ought to determine that Kings are not Proprietors nor Fructuaries but onely Administratours and since it is so that verily they can much lesse attribute to themselves the propriety and profits of every mans private Estate or of the publike wealth which belongeth to every Town Thus and much more this accute learned Lawyer to the conviction and refutation of all opposite Ignoramusses in this case of grand concernment which will put a period to our unhappy controversies concerning the Militia formerly discussed without further debate Eighthly That Emperours and Kings are most solemnly obliged by a Covenant and Oath usually made to and before all the people at their Coronations to preserve their peoples lawes liberties lives estates by breach whereof in a wilfull excessive manner they become perjured Tyrants and the people and Magistrates are in some sort thereby absolved from their Allegiance and all obedience to them This is evidently and plentifully confirmed by the forecited Coronation Oathes and Covenants of our own English Kings to their subjects by De Iure Magistratus in Subdit●s q●aest 10. p. 321. 322. and quaest 6. p. 260. to 300. Andrew Favine his Theatre of Honour lib. 2. c. 11. 24. Francisci Hotomani Franco-gallia cap. 6. 10. c. Hugo Grotius de Iure Belli Pacis 1. 2. c. 13. 14. Pontifi●ale Romanum Rome 1611. fol. 162. 163. Descriptio Coronationis Maximiliani Imperatoris Anno 1486. inter rerum German Scriptores Tom. 3. p. 32. Olaus Magnus de Gent. Septentrionalibus Hist. l. 14. c. 6. Laur Bochellus decreta Ecclesiae Gallicanae l. 5. Tit. 2. c. 1. p. 703. M. Iohn Seldens Titles of Honour part 1. ch 8. sect 5. p. 198. 214. 225. 226. where the Coronation Oathes of the Emperour French King of all the Northern Kings and of most Elective and Successive Kings and Queens to their Subjects are at large recorded Alhusius Polit. c. 4. Iustus Eccardus de Lege Regia Thomas Aquinas de Reg. Principis c. 6. 2. qu. 2 ae 12. art 2. Iohn Ponet Bishop of Winchester in his Politicall Government Arnisaeus de Authoritate Principum p. 50. to 123. Sparsim Vesquius contro Illustr passim Ioannis Mariana de Rege Regis Instit. l. 1. c. 6. 7. 9. Georg. Bnchanon de lure Regni apud Scotos Simancha Pacensis de Catholica Instit. Tit. 23. n. 11 p. 98. Franciscus Tolletus in summa l. 5 c. 6. Huldericus Zuinglius Explan Artic. 40. 41. 42. And to omitall others Iunius Brutus in his Vindiciae contra Tyrannos quaest 3. p. 156. to 167. with whose words I shall fortifie and irradiate this position We have said that in constituting a King a double Covenant is entred into the first between God the King and people of which before the second between the king and the people of which we are now to treat Saul being ordained king the royall law was delivered to him according to which he should rule David made a Covenant before the Lord in Hebron that is calling God to Witnesse with all the Elders of Israel who represented all the people and then at last he was annointed king Ioas also made a Covenant with all the people of the land in the house of the Lord Iehoiada the high Priest going before them in words Yea the testimony is said to be imposed on him together with the Crown which most interpret the Law of God which every where is called by that name Likewise Iosiah promised that he would observe the Precepts Testimonies and Statutes comprized in the book of the Covenant by which names we understand the Lawes which appertained as well to piety as to justice In all which places of Scripture a Covenant is said to bee made with all the people the whole multitude all the Elders all the m●n of Iudah that we may understand which is likewise severally expressed not onely the Princes of the Tribes but likewise all the Chiliarkes Centurions and inferior Magistrates were present in the Name of the Cities which every one a part by themselves made a Covenant with the king In that Covenant they consulted of creating the king for the people did make the king not the king the people Therefore there is no doubt but the people made the Covenant and the King promised to perform it Now the part of him that makes the Covenant is reputed the better Law The people demanded of the King whether he would not rule justly and according to the Lawes Hee promised that he would doe so wherupon the people answered That hee reigning justly they would faithfully obey him Therefore the King promised obsolutely the people but upon condition which if it were not fulfilled the people by the Law it selfe should bee reputed absolved from all obligation

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 himself alone he can transferre 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 un●ust 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 ● 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 pregnant 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 Ionathan 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 IONATHAN 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 Ionathan 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 command had assaulted Ionathan to take away his life they would have forcibly resi●ted 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. 1● 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 WITHS●OOD 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 consecrat●d to burne incense goe out of the Sanctuary for thou hast trespassed neither shall it 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 persons If any king shall unjustly assault the persons of any private Subjects men or women to violate their lives or chastities over which they have no power I make no doubt that they may and ought to bee resisted repulsed even in point of conscience but not slaine though many kings have lost their lives upon such occasions as Rodoaldus the 8. king of Lumbardy Anno 659. being taken in the very act of adultery by the adulteresses husband was slaine by him without delay and how kings attempting to murther private Subjects unjustly have themselves beene sometimes wounded and casually slaine is so rise in stories that I shall forbeare examples concluding this with the words of t Iosephus who expressely writes That the king of the Israelites by Gods expresse Law Deut. 17. was to doe nothing without the consent of the high Priest and Senate nor to multiply money and horses over much which might easily make him a contemner of the Lawes and if he addicted himselfe to these things more than was fitting HE WAS TO BE RESISTED least he became more powerfull then was expedient for their affaires To these

his Souldiers and Abishaies minds who would have slain him without any scruple 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 somewhat an unnaturall act in him Thirdly because it had ●avoured 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 Sauls life violently away Most of which considerations 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 whereas I have rewarded thee evill And thou hast shewed me this day how thou hast dealt well with me for as much as when the Lord had delivered me into thine hand THOV KILLEDST ME NOT. For if a man finde his enemy WIL HE LET HIM GO WEL AWAY Wherefore the Lord reward thee 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 sovle 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 safeguarding his person which like wise insinua●es that this his scruple of conscience 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 obl●gatory to other subjects but that they may lawfully in Davids case kill their Soveraigns But Davids resistance 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. Obiection 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 in●u● not lawfull power of Kings which should cause them thus to cry out to God This truth we have clearly gained by this obiection 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 barely 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 parallell instances 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 Roundheads 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 deri●ion 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 in 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 very seldom nor 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

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 Eucharist 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 ab●olution 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. ●udhail 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 Cerenhir 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 forme 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 Syno●e 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 treach●rously putting out the eyes of Etguin during the truce between them After which he was again publikely exc●mmunicated 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 la●ds 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 Hen●inguinna 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 sublima 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 a part 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 divers 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 a fault 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 inimitation 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 to the assertion of the Apostle very ill applied saying The spirituall man is iudged of no man 1 Corinth 2. 15. Not mean of Bishops or Clergie-men but Saints alone endued with Gods Spirit not of judging in courts of iustice but of discerning spirituall things and their own spirituall Estates as the Context resolves Thus and much more this Prelate who notwithstanding this text of the Romanes pleads an exemption of all Bishops and Priests from the kings secular power by Divine Authority and arrogates to Priest and Prelates a iudiciary lawfull power over Kings themselves to excommunicate and censure them for their offences And to descend to later times even since the the Reformation of Religion here Iohn Bridges Dean of Sarum and Bishop of Oxfort even in his Book intituled The supremacy of Christian Princes over