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
A46764	The title of an usurper after a thorough settlement examined in answer to Dr. Sherlock's Case of the allegiance due to sovereign powers, &c.	Jenkin, Robert, 1656-1727.	1690 (1690)	Wing J573; ESTC R4043	113,718	92

has been before observed and as for the Promise made to David they imagined that it might have been as punctually fulfilled to his seed tho himself had been set aside as if he had been actually dead and probably they supposed that this was the Evil that God had threatned viz. to dethrone him and set up his Son in his room when he told him by his Prophet Behold I will raise up Evil against thee out of thine own House 2. Sam. 12.11 Manasses and Nebuchadnezzar were as great Tyrants to their Subjects as great Enemies to the true Religion and as great Offenders in all respects against God as any Christian King can be supposed to be Yet when God caused Manasses to be carried away captive to Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar to be driven from amongst men to eat Grass with the Beasts of the Field he brought these Afflictions upon them not to deprive either of them of their Kingdoms but only to humble them and then to restore them to their Thrones And his dealing with Nebuchadnezzar is most of all considerable in this matter because the Judgment upon him was purposely designed to the intent that the living may know that the most high ruleth in the Kingdom of men and giveth it to whomsoever he will and setteth up over it the basest of men Dan. 4.17 and yet v. 26. it is told him Thy Kingdom shall be sure unto thee after that thou shalt have known that the Heavens do rule and in the 31. verse There fell a Voice from Heaven saying O King Nebuchadnezzar to thee it is spoken the Kingdom is departed from thee which was taken from him for the space of seven years until he should know that the most highest ruleth in the Kingdom of men and giveth it to whomsoever he will v. 32. This then being an Example purposely set for the Admonition of Kings and to acquaint the World that God raises them up and deposes them as he pleases we may from hence conclude that tho they be dispossessed by his Appointment whether secret or express yet we can have no certainty that he has utterly rejected them but rather that upon their Repentance he will again restore them to the Enjoyment of their Dominions which they have still a Right to against any Usurper or Possessour of them Thirdly What Danger soever Religion may seem to be in yet it is manifest that throughout all Ages of the Church Religion never flourished more than in times of Persecution and Religion itself forbidding us to defend it by any Disloyalty if by any such unseasonable and unwarrantable means Subjects undertake the Preservation of Religion they may expect for their Reward no better than uzzah's Fate who put forth his hand to support the Ark of God when he saw it shaking and like to fall God can preserve it without our help against all the Power and Stratagems of the greatest Kings or he can turn the hearts of Kings and of Enemies make them become its Defenders So he turned the hearts of Nebuchadnezzar and Manasses and there is no Reason to suspect that God will not grant Princes space for Repentance now he rules the World by his Providence as he did in those Ages of Prophecy and Revelation It may be alledged that where there is an express Revelation men must follow the directions God is pleased to give and proceed no further than he appoints But when we have only his Providence to guide us we must not neglect to make use of the present occasion but must take all the opportunities which Providence puts into our hands as so many indications of what God expects and requires of us I answer this is a plain Argument that we ought not to make God's Providence the Rule of our Actions but his Law Because this principle would have misled those of ancient times contrary to Gods design and purpose in an immediate Revelation as well as it may now make us transgress his revealed Will recorded in Scripture and his Laws ingraved in our Nature I mean the Laws of Justice and of Obedience to Governors For from hence it appears that his Providence is not a sufficient Interpreter of his Will in what he requires of us if it were they might have rely'd upon it then and since it is not we must not depend upon it now Because the Scripture is our Guide as much as an immediate Revelation was theirs and we have as little warrant to follow Providence without a Revelation in Scripture for it as they could have to follow it without an immediate Revelation For as Prophecys and Revelations are long since ceased so we are no where told that God's Providence shall be instead of them to us but the Scriptures are to us instead of all other Revelations and we are to interpret God's Will by his Providence no further than they direct us to do And from the Scriptures we may be assured that God by his Providence often offers men opportunities of doing things only for their Tryal and when he gives them no license to do them If ever any circumstances of Providence could justifie an Action otherwise sinful they must have been those which David was in when Saul was twice at his mercy He was before by Gods appointment anointed to succeed in the Throne and Saul the first time came unexpectedly into his Power the second time a deep sleep from the Lord was fain upon Saul and his whole Army God had promised David to deliver his Enemy into his Hand and David's Followers both times did not fail to put him in mind of it So that if Providence could be at any time a sufficient warrant David must have had as full a Commission to have slain Saul as Ahud had to kill Eglon or John to kill Joram and David must have concluded that God who had before rejected Saul from being King had now actually devested him of all his Authority and according to his Promise had delivered Saul to him to execute the divine Vengeance upon him But because this would have been to act against a known Duty he still owns Saul for his Master and the Lords anointed and repented of the cutting off but the Skirt of his Garment All this probably was designed as a Tryal to David as well as to propose him for an example of Fidelity to all Ages and perhaps nothing can be more reasonably concluded from our late Revolution than that we are now cal'd to the practice of that Loyalty which we have made such high professions of I shall add no more but only transcribe some Passages out of Dr Sherlock's Case of Resistance to shew that the Authority of that very great Man can signifie little in this Controversie whatever his Arguments may do We know what use some men have made of this Argument of Providence to justifie all the Villanies they had a mind to act p. 29. But David it seems did not think that an Opportunity of doing evil

whither he might uncertain whither to go and almost despairing of his Return Absalom possessed himself of the City and David was so forlorn and despicable that Shimei cursed him to his face and threw stones at him and told him withal that Gods just Judgment was faln upon him in revenge of the Blood which he had shed of the House of Saul and that the Lord had delivered the Kingdom into the hand of Absalom his Son 2. Sam. 16.8 And this seems to have been the general Opinion of all that followed Absalom in his Rebellion and therefore Hushai chose it as the fairest Pretence to recommend himself to him and make him believe that he was firm to his Interest nay but whom the Lord and this People and all the men of Israel chuse his will I be and to him will I belong v. 28. So that the Man after Gods own heart and of his own designation to the Kingdom could not be secure against this Principle and it can hardly prove of better consequence to other Kings if they must be looked upon as abandoned and dethroned by God himself whenever they are forced to withdraw and by a strong hand are kept out of their Dominions And it ought to be considered how King Charles II. could retain any Right to his Kingdoms upon this supposition and yet he had an indisputable Right during his long Absence in the Judgment not only of all the Loyal Nobility and Clergy and Gentry of that time but of our Parliaments and of the whole Nation ever since his Return VI We find in Scripture that when God himself does dispossess Kings of their Kingdoms Dan. 4.26.2 Chron. 33.13 he doth not always devest them of their Right but reserves it for them and restores them to the Possession of it again upon their Repentance Thus it was in the Case of Nebuchadnezzar and Manasses and it is very reasonable to believe that God doth often punish Kings and Subjects too by successful Rebellions and by Usurpations upon the Regal Rights and Prerogatives without any intention to release them from the mutual Obligations of their respective Duties to one another And if this has been the Case as the Scripture informs us it has if Reason tells us that such Cases may be again since they are very agreeable to Gods Justice and Wisdom and Goodness in governing the World then all that the Dr. hath said for transferring the Allegiance of Subjects from the dispossessed King by Law to the Possessor of his Throne by Providence falls to the ground And yet we ought to be very sure before we venture to act upon such a Principle For it would be a mighty Temptation and Encouragement to ambitious men to be always making dangerous Attempts upon the Rights ' and Dominions of Princes if they could be assured that if once their Usurpation proved so prosperous as to put them into a full Possession they should then be secured in it by a Divine Right and would be so far from any Obligations to make Resticution that they would be bound to stand by it and all the Subjects would be obliged to maintain and defend them with their Lives and Fortunes against the dispossessed Prince It is not to be imagined what confusion it would breed in the World if no restitution were to be made of what is gotten by Fraud and Rapine out of Private Estates but all were a Man 's own that he could but get and keep Men would easily flatter themselves that they might sin first and then repent at their leisure if this mortifying part of Repentance were but remitted but when they must restore all again or be damned they may perhaps think fit to sit down contented at first And this Doctrine would be so much the more dangerous to Kingdoms as they are greater Baits and the Injustice is greater and the Mischiefs more grievous But it may be said that tho this Argument from success and a Thorough Settlement should not hold good in all Cases yet such peculiar Circumstances may sometimes fall out as plainly shew it to be God's doing and command our Submission and Obedience Suppose a Prince by a Series of fatal Miscarriages and by a strong infatuation as it were from God upon all his Counsels undermines his own Throne and in a short Reign loses the Hearts of a Nation at first wholly devoted to his service suppose he alienates the affections of his greatest Dependents and Favorites and that the Body of his People revolt from him and that all Orders and Degrees of men conspire to renounce him and without War or Bloodshed set up another in his room in whom all their remaining hopes are placed and whose Arms are attended by a favourable and wonderful Providence suppose that there is no Human Prospect of the former King's return at all and that if he do return it must be to the ruin of the Kingdom and the overthrow of the true Religion is not this a Settlement so throughly established that we must needs be obliged to stand up in defence of it and have we not in this case all the Assurance that can possibly be without an express Revelation that our Allegiance is transferred This I think is the highest that the Case can be put In answer to which First It must be granted that all this cannot prove more effectually that our Allegiance is transferred now it is brought about by his Providence than if it had come to pass by an express Revelation or than if God had denounced this as a Judgment upon the Prince whom it is supposed to have befallen For the utmost that can be supposed is that Gods Providence is now the same Evidence of his Pleasure to us that his Revelation was to those of former Ages and therefore if when God had declared that he did send such Calamities as Judgments upon a Prince this was no Argument to the People that they were released from their Duty of Allegiance it can be no Argument to us now tho the Providence be never so signal and extraordinary Secondly We see in the Examples before-mentioned that what befel those Princes was from God and that he had dispossessed them of their Kingdoms and yet their Right still remained King David was forced to fly in great hast from his own Palace he left his Capital City and the Ark of God itself in the Enemies Power and when Shimei cursed him he made this Reflection upon it that God had bid him to do it and to make the Judgment still more signal Absalom went in unto his Fathers Concubines in the sight of all Israel which was directly the fulfilling of that Judgment which Nathan had pophesied should come upon him yet his Subjects all the while could be excused from no Duty of Allegiance to him but were as much obliged to all instances of it as if he had been still at Jerusalem and upon the Throne tho Absalom's Followers interpreted it otherwise as