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	hand_n	saul_n	2,591	5	9.7819	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39917	Parallēla dysparallēla, or, The loyal subjects indignation for his royal sovereign's decollation expressed in an unparallel'd parallel between the professed murtherer of K. Saul and the horrid actual murtherers of King Charles I the substance whereof was delivered in a sermon preached at Allhallows Church in Northhampton on (the day appointed for an anniversary humiliation in reference to that execrable fact) Jan. 30, 1660 / by Simon Ford.	Ford, Simon, 1619?-1699.	1661 (1661)	Wing F1491; ESTC R2735	45,646	57

rhey relate to a preceding Narrative made by an Amalekite a mercenary of Sauls as is likely escaped out of that battel before mentioned concerning the manner of the Kings death We will take a little time before we come to a particular view of them to examine the considerable passages in it and circumstances relating to it And it is observable that the villain expresseth in 〈◊〉 carriage and relation a strange mixture of 1. Confidence Managed with a strange 2. Caution First Confidence in that he took the boldnesse to be the Relator 1. Confidence of such a story concerning himself and that in the face of Authority which an ordinary person would have trembled to have been charged withall by another And that which most sets off his confidence is that the person before whom he confesseth himself guilty of promoting Sauls death was his immediate Successoun David who by his death became actually King Had he been never so slightly read in politicks he might have learned that succeeding Kings however they may look on the news of their Predecessors death as acceptable tidings yet seldom look favourably upon those who have been Instruments in making the royal Seat void for them as considering that the same persons who have been so kind to them upon like inducements may be easily tempted to do the like courtesie for others as occasion serves But it seems the Wretch built his confidence upon three probable Upon mistaken grounds conjectures in all of which neverthelesse he was sorely mistaken 1. That David being by Gods appointment and Samuels unction the next in succession to Saul might by his greedinesse to grasp the Scepter be tempted to make another judgement of the fact then otherwise he would and account his service meritorious who had holpen him to it sooner then in the course of nature it would have fallen He made an ill conjecture it appears at the temper of Davids spirit which was not so sharp-set upon the dish of Royalty however tempting in it self and to vulgar appetites but that he could stay till Gods providence in a regular way carved it to him How much mind soever he had to the golden apple which sets all the world at odds Dominion yet had he no mind to have the Tret on which it grew battered to make it fall before the time 2. That however David might be too mortified to bite at the bait of Ambition yet secret revenge might tickle him into a good humour when he understood in what manner divine vengeance had overtaken his deadly enemy and implacable persecutor But David had learned that a gracious soul is frequently the more endangered by being secure from dangers That a state of persecution well husbanded is the most feracious soil for grace to thrive in That be the benefit accrewing by the fall of ones enemy never so great yet to rejoyce at the destruction of him that hateth us when evil hath found him is not only a vicious disposition in morality but a sin of no ordinary size in Divinity Job 35. 15. and especially when the person so suffering is the Lords anointed and so the private advantage accrewing thereby to any person is too inconsiderable a compensation to be laid in ballance against a publique losse And upon this account his politicks failed the Relator in his second presumption 3. That David had been in Arms against Saul for divers years and was at this time in a posture of defence against him in a frontier Town of an enemies Country These considerations gave very great suspicion that he designed the death of Saul himself and so was at least intentionally a partner in guilt with him who effected it But the Miscreant either knew not or was willing not to know that Davids Arms were meerly defensive not offensive that as his warrant for wearing them was extraordinary and much different from other subjects in like cases so his temper in the use of them was extraordinary also and lastly that he had more then once given evidence of no lesse when both opportunity and tentation from his most intimate friends had put it to the utmost trial 1 Sam. 24. 26. And thus was he mistaken in his third conjecture which bottomed his Confidence And possibly he himself might have some twinges and wrenches of suspicion that he might be so and that in the midst of his boldnesse makes him to manage his relation in the second place with much Secondly Caution Which appears in several particulars observable 2. Caution in his Artifices Pleas for justification or extenuation of the Fact 1. He relates only the death of Saul Davids enemy v. 5. in his carriage and narrative whereby he seems of purpose to design the extenuation of this fact which he assumed the boldnesse thus to relate As 1. That though he brought the tidings of both Sauls and Jonathans death yet he pretends not to have any such particular knowledge of Jonathans death as he had of Sauls though David asked him concerning them both lest David should by the circumstances of his own relation have suspected him guilty of Jonathans death also as he confessed himself of Sauls He knew that friendship which was between David and Jonathan would have endangered him to a more severe scrutiny then he hoped he should undergo for Sauls At least he was not so ready to insist on that part of the story which he knew was the most unwelcome and therefore chose to insist only on that which he hoped would be better entertained He had indeed slain Davids enemy and so could give the most perfect relation of his death but could say little but from the voice of the people concerning the death of his friend 2. That though he confesseth he had an hand in the death of 2. He justifieth his Fact 1. By Sauls request Saul yet he was requested by himself to do it He said unto him stand upon me I pray thee and slay me ver 9. Now volenti non fit injuria and how much lesse roganti No man is injured but against his will and therefore it cannot in any reason come under the notion of Injury to satisfie anothers Request which hath in it a superlative degree of Voluntariness Besides he was his Sovereign and so his Requests adopted the Authority of Commands And if his Soveraigns Command might warrant him to take away the life of another why might it not justifie him rather in the case of his own seeing what is a mans own is more properly and directly in his power to dispose of than what is anothers Add to this that it was the last Office of Love and Service that he was capable of performing towards him and that so great that as he had cause to believe that Saul himself thanked him for it in his dying thoughts so his very Ghost if it were present could not but attest that no man ever merited more highly from Saul than he had done

horrid sin of murthering the Lords anointed and sentenceth him accordingly To clear the Justice of which Censure and Sentence seeing it will much conduce to the main Hypothesis the setting forth the horrid wickednesse of King-killing and be of much use to us in our application we will consider every one of his real or possible Plea's apart and answer them in their order His own plea's are seven before mentioned to which we will adde one made by Interpreters of this Scripture and that shall be the first First though the Amalekite pleads it not yet there may be a The Amalekites pleas answered Plea 1. answered which is the plea of Interpreters for him Question made Whether the Holy Ghost in the relation of Sauls death 1 Sam. 31. 4 5. do not acquit him of having any hand in the Fact though he in hope of reward might take it upon himself For the story tels us that when Saul had desired his Armour-bearer to do him the kindnesse to dispatch him and he had refused Saul took a sword and fell upon it and that he died of that wound by his own hand seems probable by what is immediatly subjoined that Sauls Armour-bearer seeing that he was dead fell likewise upon his own sword and died From hence with much likelihood some Interpreters confidently acquit the Amalekite from the Fact Nor shall I much contend with them about it seeing I shall upon other accounts clear Davids justice upon him anon Though I might tell them that there is no cogent reason to demonstrate a contradiction between the relation of the History and the Amalekites Narrative For what if Saul fell upon his own sword and the Amalekite sayes he found him leaning upon his Spear Both may be true he might first fall on his own Sword and that not dispatching him might scramble up again and make a Second Attempt with his Spear but could not make way through his Coat of Mayle as the Margin to v. 9. renders his words to the Amalekite And what if it be subjoyned after his falling on his Sword that his Armour-bearer saw that he was dead Doth it therefore follow that he died immediately of that Wound The Armour-bearer might conclude him dead seeing him so wounded and faln when yet he might struggle longer with death then he imagined and out-live him that thought him dead even till the Amalekite came and finding him in that sad posture killed him outright But however be it that the Amalekite did the Fact indeed or only boasted in hope of reward that he had done it yet received he no wrong from David 1. Voluntary Confession especially where no Force is used to extort it upon publick arraignment in the presence of a Judge is Conviction sufficient to justifie the condemnation of the person confessing 2. Abundance of Circumstances there were to confirm David in the belief of it As 1. That he was an Amalekite and so one that upon a National quarrel might be supposed to owe Saul a Mischief who had put the whole Nation of which he was excepting only himself and some few more it is probable carried away contrary to Gods Command alive for Slaves 1 Sam. 15. And it may be upon this account in his Examination David asked him again whence he was V. 13. though in his Relation of the Discourse between Saul and himself he had let fall no less before that he might judicially confess that Circumstance so necessary to his Conviction upon Deliberation 2. The Crown and Bracelet which were known to be Sauls gave evidence that in all probability he had the Rifling of dead Saul and probably might kill him that he might plunder him 3. That whether he committed the Fact or no yet was he guilty of it in intention at least otherwise he would not have made so formal a story to gain from David the reputation of having done it and related it with a kind of glorying in it as an act of merit towards David Insomuch that if he were not really guilty of the Fact David was upon these evidences guiltless of his Blood and as he tels him V. 16. that his Blood lay upon his own head And thus hath the first Plea made by Interpreters on his behalf no other strength than this to give farther evidence to the horrid guilt of King-killing even though it be granted For if that person justly died for it who had as the Plea supposeth no other guilt of the Royal Blood upon him than that he esteemed the shedding of it a meritorious Service and shewed his willingness to have done it by boasting that he had done it What a dreadful Crime must it be to be guilty of the Fact indeed the very Intimation of a good will whereunto rendered this Amalekite so criminal His own seven Pleas answered Et passa est Poenas peccandi sola voluntas Plea Answered 2 But it may be further said as was before urged that Saul was a Tyrant a Persecutor of David and his deadly Enemy And it is hard measure that he should die by Davids Command who had by this very Fact saved Davids Life To this the Answer from Davids Principles is easie He was indeed Davids Enemy but he was Davids Soveraign and the Lords Anointed Besides Had David been so desirous to be rid of his Enemy in such a way he needed not to have left that work to be done by an Amalekite seeing he had refused such a Service when offered by better Friends Lastly If he were Davids Enemy he ought the rather to do him Justice upon his Murderer that he might declare himself in the execution of Law the more impartial and learn others that the private Injuries received from our just and lawful Soveraigns ought to make no Impressions upon our Allegiance to the Lords Anointed Plea Answered 3 But Saul himself desired him to put an end to his miserable life the Amalekites Second Plea Grant this too But was he Saul that is himself when he desired it Fear and Guilt and Anguish and Loss of Blood and Spirits and it may be over and above an evil Spirit from the Lord with which he was wont to be haunted may be supposed at this time to intercept the exercise of his Reason And is it the part of a Sober man to kill another at his Request when he is out of his wits and understands not what he saies Will no Law allow a mad-man to dispose of his Goods and Lands and will it warrant him to dispose of his Life Besides Who is there that thinks himself obliged to gratifie the desires or obey the Commands of a private Person in distemper by easing him of his Life whenever he thinks it a burden How much less when the case concerns a publick Magistrate whose Life and Death are of publick concernment and the Lives of whole Nations are bound up in his So that the best obedience in such a case as this had been by Principles of Religion and