Selected quad for the lemma: enemy_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
enemy_n	david_n	good_a	saul_n	976	5	9.2797	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A91298	The third part of The soveraigne povver of parliaments and kingdomes. Wherein the Parliaments present necessary defensive warre against the Kings offensive malignant, popish forces; and subjects taking up defensive armes against their soveraignes, and their armies in some cases, is copiously manifested, to be just, lawfull, both in point of law and conscience; and neither treason nor rebellion in either; by inpregnable reasons and authorities of all kindes. Together with a satisfactory answer to all objections, from law, Scripture, fathers, reason, hitherto alledged by Dr. Ferne, or any other late opposite pamphleters, whose grosse mistakes in true stating of the present controversie, in sundry points of divinity, antiquity, history, with their absurd irrationall logicke and theologie, are here more fully discovered, refuted, than hitherto they have been by any: besides other particulars of great concernment. / By William Prynne, utter-barrester, of Lincolnes Inne. It is this eighth day of May, 1643. ordered ... that this booke, ... be printed by Michael Sparke, senior. John White.; Soveraigne power of parliaments and kingdomes. Part 3	Prynne, William, 1600-1669.; England and Wales. Parliament. House of Commons.	1643 (1643)	Wing P4103; Thomason E248_3; ESTC R203191	213,081	158

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 THHE NOT know then and see that there is neither evill nor transgression in mine hand and I have not sinned against thee yet then 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 right consnes 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 tribulations 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 his Souldiers and Abishaies minds who would have slain him without any seruple 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 some what an unnaturall act in him Thirdly because it had favoured 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 Saul life violently away Most of which consideration 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 where as I have rewarded thee evill And thou hast shewedme this day how thou hast deals well with me for asmuch as when the Lord had delivered me into thine hand THOU KILLEDST ME NOT. For if a man finde his enemy WIL HE LET HIM GO WEL AWAY Wherefore the Lord reward three 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 solve 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 safe guarding his persons which like wise insinua●es that this his scruple of conseience 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 obligatory to other subjects but that they may lawfully in Davids case kill their Soveraigns But Davids resistauce 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. Objection 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 inju● not lawfull power of Kings which should cause them thus to cry out to God This truth we have clearly gained by this objection 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 ba●ely 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 parrallell instance 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 Round heads 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

away his life And iffo 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 slight 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 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 not 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 he 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 Soveraigne 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 assaulrs 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 affailants 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 or 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 quartell had been Treachery and impiety in a Son-in-Law a Servant a Subject a ●uccessour 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 S●veraign 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 justly with safe consciences have forcibly defended themselves against Saul and his Army had they been assaulted by them in their own Trenches is a transcendent 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 himselfe against his violence though he might not murther him now in his sleep when he did him no hard 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 Pallistines to the battell against Sanl wherein he perished 1 Sam. 2● unlesse we will taxe Davide for a notable Hypocrite and dissembler unanswerably eviden●eth 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 treacheously 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 saly him by his own command Not that resistance of him in the open battell was unlawfull in point of conscience Other answer 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 had me kill thee but mine eye SPARED THEE and I said I will not put forth

Pauls Peters objected inhibitions then à fortiori they may be with corporall which are lesse noxious and prevalent he that may with most successeful meanes resist vanquish and overcome his tyrannizing oppressing Soveraigne may likewise doe it by the lesse noxious Armes If Christians may repulse and subdue a Tyrant with their Prayers Teares then why not with their Swords Doth God or the Scripture make any such distinction that we may and must resist them under paine of damnation with these kind of weapons and shall it be no lesse then Treason Rebellion Damnation to resist them with the other what difference is there in point of Allegiance Loyalty Treason Conscience to resist an oppressing tyrannizing Prince and his Forces with a Praier or with a Sword with a Teare or with a Speare Are they not all one in substance By the Statutes of 26 H. 8. c. 13. 1 E. 6. c. 14. 5 E. 6. c. 11. 1 Eliz. c. 6. 13 Eliz. c. 1. words against the King delivered even in Preaching are made and declared to be high Treason as wel as bearing Armes and striking blowes yea the Statute of 1 2 Ph. Ma. c. 9. makes certaine prayers against this persecuting Queen high Treason and by the Statute of 25 E. 3. c. 2. it is high Treason for any man to COMPASSE OR IMAGIN the death of the King Queen Prince as wel as to slay or leavy warre against them If then we may by the Objectors confession the practises and examples of the Primitive Christians against Iulian and others fight with our Tongues Prayers Teares Imaginations against our Soveraignes who turne Tyrants and Persecutors and thereby suppresse conquer confound them of which none make scruple though our Statutes make it no lesse then high Treason in some cases then questionlesse they may by the selfe same reason and ground resist them with open force notwithstanding any inhibition in Scripture We may not must not resist any lawful King or Magistrate in the just execution of his office so much as with a repugnant wil thought prayer teare we may yea must resist an oppressing persecuting Tyrant with all these therefore with any other Armes meanes Hezekiah David Moses Abijah Asa resisted their invading enemies and conquered them with their prayers but yet they provided to repulse and vanquish them with other externall Armes The Christians resistance and vanquishing their Emperour Iulian with the one is an infallible argument they might doe it with the other too there being no such distinction in the objected Scriptures that we may fight against and resist them with our prayers teares not armes Fourthly this Father saith not that it was unlawful for the Christians to use any other weapons but teares against Iulian the onely thing in question No such syllable in the Oration but onely that they had no other Armes to resist and conquer him with being utterly destitute and spoyled of all other humane helpe Therefore their want of other Armes and helpe not the unlawfulnesse of using them had they had them was the onely ground they used prayers and teares not armes To argue then those who are destitute of all Armes but prayers and teares must use them onely Ergo those who have other Armes besides prayers and teares may not lawfully use them to resist a Tyrant is but Scholastical Nonsence yet this is the very uttermost this authority yeelds our opposites In one word this Father informes us that this Apostate Emperour Iulian would not make open warre at first upon the Christians because this would altogether crosse the end he aimed at marke the reason Nos enim si vis inferatur acriores obstinatioresque futuros ac tyrannidi obnixum pietatis TUENDAE STUDIUM OBJECTUROS cogitavit Solent enim fortes generosi animi ei QUI VIM AFFERRE PARAT CONTUMACITER OBSISTERE non secus ac flamma quae a vento excitatur quo vehementius perflatur eo vehementius accenditur Which argues that the Christians would have forcibly resisted him had he at first with force invaded them therefore he weakened subdued disarmed them first by policy and then fell to persecute them with force when they had no meanes of resistance left The third authority is that of Bernard Epist 221. to King Lewis of France Quicquid vobis de Regno vestro de animâ coronâ vestrâ facere placeat NOS ECCLESIAE FILII matris injurias contemptum conculcationem omnino dissimulare non possumus Profecto STABIMUSET PUGNABIMVS USQUE AD MORTEM si ita oportuerit pro matre nostrâ ARMIS QUIBUS LICET non scutis gladiis SED PRECIBUS ET FLETIBUS AD DEUM Therefore it is unlawfull for Christians to resist with force of Armes I answer first Bernard was both a Monke and Clergie-man prohibited by Scripture and sundry Canons to fight with military Armes against any person or enemy whatsoever and he utters these words of himselfe as he was a Clergie-man servant and sonne of the Church in the selfesame sence as Saint Ambrose did before It was then onely his Calling not the cause which prohibited him forcibly to resist King Lewis Secondly I answer that this authority is so farre from prohibiting resistance of oppressing Princes endeavouring with force of Armes to subvert Liberties Lawes Religion that it is an unanswerable proofe for it even in our present case King Lewis to whom Bernard writes had then raised a civil warre in his Realme against Theobald and others who desired peace which the King rejecting Bernard doth thus reprehend him in the premisses Verum vos nec verba pacis recipitis nec pacta vestra tenetis nec sanis consiliis acquicscitis Sed nescio quo Dei judicio omnia vobis ita vertitis in perversum ut probra honorem honorem probra ducatis tuta timeatis timexda contemnatis quod olim sancto glorioso Regi David Ioab legitur exprobrasse diligitis eos qui vos oderunt odio habetis qui vos diligere volunt Neque enim qui vos instigant priorem iterare maliciam adversus non merentem quaerunt in hoc honorem vestrum sed suum commodum imò nec suum commodum SED DIABOLI VOLUNTATEM ut Regis quod absit potentiam concepti furoris habeant effectricem quem suis se posse adimplere viribus non confidunt INIMICI CORONAE VESTRAE REGNI MANIFESTISSIMI PERTURBATORES Our present case in regard of the Kings evil seduding Counsellors Then immediately followes the objected clause At quicquid vobis c. After which he gives him this sharpe reproofe Non tacebo quod cum excommunicatis iterare faedus societatem nunc satagis quod in necem hominum combustionem domorum destructionem Ecclesiarum dispersionem pauperum raptoribus predonibus sicut dicitur adhaeretis juxta illud Prophetae si videbas furem currebas cum eo c. quasi non satis per