The truth of the times vindicated whereby the lawfulness of Parliamentary proceedings in taking…The truth of the times vindicated whereby the lawfulnesse of Parliamentary procedings in taking…

Then the Doctor comes down to the example of David: And whereas it is urged by us that David did take up Arms to defend himself from the violence of his Prince Saul, the Dr. replies now as before, that Davids example was extraordinary. Well but when it is said that David having advantage of Saul, did not lay hands upon him to cut him off as he might have done; what if we should say, that Act of Davids was extraordinary would not the Doctor tell us that our Answer was but ordinary: he tells us, pag. 31. of his Reply, that Conquest, one of the means by which Godiranstates Kingdoms, and that David ⟨p. 34⟩being provoked by the King of Ammon, brought tha people order, 2 Sam. 12. And that the Edomites were so brought under the Dominion of Judah: What if we should give this Answer that these were extraordinary cases. Would not the Doctor take it for a poor shifting Answer from us; When we say any practice is extraordinary, we must also prove by circumstance, that there was an extraordinaries in the fact, or else acquies in it for our example: But be it so, that Davids example was extraordinary, is not our case now extraordinary? Is Englands case ordinary: hath it bin thus ordinarily, that Arms have bin taken up against the Parliament, and Delinquents kept from legal trial by force of Arms? has this bin for many years? see how the Doctor helps himself by this extraordinary Answer. He tells us in his first Book p. 8. that this work of David was a mere defence without all violence offered to Saul; and is not this ordinarily lawful for subjects to do so much; the Doctor grants it himself, p. 9. of his first Book, That personal defence is lawful against sudden and illegal assaults of the Prince himself, thus far, toward his blows, to hold his bands, &c. and the like; But the Doctor in his Reply has thought of a new reason to prove Davids example extraordinary, because else may private and single men do so too.

Then the Doctor comes downe to the example of David: And whereas it is urged by us that David did take up Arms to defend himselfe from the violence of his Prince Saul, the Dr. replies now as before, that Davids example was extraordinary. Well but when it is said that David having advantage of Saul, did not lay hands upon him to cut him off as he might have done; what if wee should say, that Act of Davids was extraordinary would not the Doctor tell us that our Answer was but ordinary: he tells us, pag. 31. of his Reply, that Conquest, one of the meanesiby whch Godiranstates Kingdomes, and that David