A brief answer to Doctor Ferns book tending to resolve conscience about the subjects…A briefe answer to Doctor Fernes booke tending to resolve conscience about the subjects…

The next Scripture is, 1 Sam. 26.9. Who can stretch out his hand against the Lords Anointed and be guiltless?

The next Scripture is, 1 Sam. 26.9. Who can stretch out his hand against the Lords Anointed and be guiltlesse?

Why doth the D. speak of stretching forth the hand against the Lords Anointed? who endeavours it? doth not the Parliament profess the defence of the Kings Person? 2. Doctor Willet upon this place gives you this Answer, That indeed it is not lawful for a private man to lay hands, no not upon a tyrant, for it is not lawful for a private man to kill a thief or a murderer, much less a Magistrate, a Prince. But secondly, he tells us of some that have laid hands upon a King, and yet have been guiltless, as Ebud upon Eglon King of Moab: therefore from that Scripture there cannot be a general Proposition drawn, that no man in any case may stretch forth his hand against a King. Yea Doctor Willet answers in the third place, that yet Tyrants and wicked Governors may be removed by the whole State. He indeed limits this, and says, it must be understood of such Kingdoms as go by election, as in Polonia, and gives this reason, From whom Kings receive their authority, by them may they be constrained in keep within bounds. This it seems was good Divinity in those days. This distinction he used, to deliver the opinion from opposition in England; but if the distinction be examined, there will appear little strength in it: We do not find that D. Willet was ever reproved, or his writings censured for this thing.

Why doth the D. speake of stretching forth the hand against the Lords Anointed? who endeavours it? doth not the Parliament professe the defence of the Kings Person? 2. Doctor Willet upon this place gives you this Answer, That indeed it is not lawfull for a private man to lay hands, no not upon a tyrant, for it is not lawfull for a private man to kill a thiefe or a murderer, much lesse a Magistrate, a Prince. But secondly, he tels us of some that have laid hands upon a King, and yet have been guiltlesse, as Ebud upon Eglon King of Moab: therefore from that Scripture there cannot be a generall Proposition drawn, that no man in any case may stretch forth his hand against a King. Yea Doctor Willet answers in the third place, that yet Tyrants and wicked Governours may be removed by the whole State. He indeed limits this, and sayes, it must be understood of such Kingdomes as goe by election, as in Polonia, and gives this reason, From whom Kings receive their authority, by them may they be constrained in keep within bounds. This it seems was good Divinity in those dayes. This distinction he used, to deliver the opinion from opposition in England; but if the distinction be examined, there will appeare little strength in it: We doe not find that D. Willet was ever reproved, or his writings censured for this thing.