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	life_n	saul_n	1,175	5	9.4858	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A55033	Scripture and reason pleaded for defensive armes: or The whole controversie about subjects taking up armes Wherein besides other pamphlets, an answer is punctually directed to Dr. Fernes booke, entituled, Resolving of conscience, &c. The scriptures alleadged are fully satisfied. The rationall discourses are weighed in the ballance of right reason. Matters of fact concerning the present differences, are examined. Published by divers reverend and learned divines. It is this fourteenth day of Aprill, 1643. ordered by the Committee of the House of Commons in Parliament concerning printing, that this booke, entituled Scripture and reason pleaded for defensive armes, be printed by Iohn Bellamy and Ralph Smith. John White.	Palmer, Herbert, 1601-1647.; England and Wales. Parliament. House of Commons.	1643 (1643)	Wing P244; ESTC R206836	105,277	84

that Subjects may not resist a Prince who is bent to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties The Apostles Reasons against Resisters are 1. For Rulers are not a terrour to good workes but to evill Now is this a reason why I may not resist such a Tyrant Who can be more a terrour to good workes and not to evill then he that is bent to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties Ergo of such a Resistance of a tyrant the Apostle speakes not But of Resistance of that Ruler who go's altogether according to Lawes and Liberties which is justly punishable with Damnation without Gainsaying 2. A second Reason or enforcement of the Apostles argument against Resistance is Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power Doe that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same Now doth this argue a Tyrant is not to be resisted Is there no cause of feare of him while a man do's that which is good that is bent to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties Or shall a man have praise in doing good of such a Tyrant Therefore is not a Tyrant that power which may not be resisted But he that stands to the Lawes and Rules according to them Damnation is just against those that resist him without question 3. Thirdly The Apostle proceeds vers 4. For he is the Minister of God to thee for good and so not to be resisted without resisting the Ordinance of God and so incurring damnation But is this true of a Tyrant bent to subvert Religion Laws and Liberties Is he the Minister of God to thee for good Or the Minister of his owne lusts rather for evill Resistance of such an one then is not the Resistance the Apostle forbids but of one who is the conservatour of Religion for he and he only is the Minister of God to thee for good and worthy is he of Damnation that resists such an one 4. The Apostle adds If thou doe that which is evill feare for he beareth not the Sword in vaine For he is the Minister of God a Revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill Is this man a Tyrant bent to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties or most directly opposite to Tyranny A Tyrant secures those that do evil so they will joyn with him and serve him in his Tyranny from feare And he beares the Sword not only in vaine in reference to any good end intended by Gods ordinance but altogether contrary to it and is so farr from being the Minister of God that he is as before a Minister of his owne lusts to shelter those that doe evill and to pursue with all wrath and revenge him that doth good and will not be a slave to his lawles designes and desires Still then of such a Tyrant S. Paul argues not that he may not be resisted but him that he describes which is a just Governour and so upon no terms to be resisted 5. Upon all this the Apostle resumes Wherefore you must of necessity be subject not only for wrath but also for Conscience sake What rules of conscience before laid inferr'd now by the word wherefore urge such an Asinine or stupid su●ject as to be subject even passively and not to resist one that is bent to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties when all that went before speake expresly of another power and Rulers of another temper A man then for feare of wrath not being able to make good his Resistance may yeeld such passive subjection but sure conscience at least not in this place urges him not to it 6. Yet the Apostle goes-on For this cause also pay you Tribute for they are Gods Ministers continually attending on this very thing For what cause Because they may attempt to subvert Religion Laws and Liberties Doe we pay Tribute for this cause that they plunder and change Lawes c. Or that they may defend them Also upon what thing are they thus Gods Ministers to attend continually Is it to subvert Lawes c. Or to preserve them The Apostle then speakes not of a Tyrant but a just ruling Prince and pitty but he should be damn'd that resists him 7. Finally he concludes this matter with saying Render to all their due By what Law of God or man may a Tyrant subvert Religion Laws and Liberties or even be let alone in so doing I am sure the Apostle hath not exprest any such thing hitherto It is Ergo but the Doctours mistake though I confesse it hath beene many wise and good mens before him that the Apostle forbids resisting such a Tyrant which as I said above all his Reasons go rather quite contrary unto as describing the Power and Ruler that is to be subjected to and not resisted altogether crosse to Tyranny and his Interpretation and Assertion is altogether crosse to the Apostles Having set the understanding of the maine Text right I come now to those examples that are alleadged to proove That it is lawfull to resist in some cases 1. The example of the peoples resisting Sauls illegall and tyrannicall attempt to have put Jonathan to death without cause If this were lawfull in them in a particular mans case against whom also there was some seemig cause How much more to resist one that is bent to subvert Religion Laws and Liberties and so to take away the life of many at his own pleasure To this is answered not that it was unlawfull in the people to make this resistance which yet if he deny not he plainly yeelds his cause in his first Proposition and Rom. 13.2 forbids not all Resistance but only that the people drew not into Armes themselves but being there at Sauls command did by a loving violence and importunity hinder the execution of a particular and passionate unlawfull command To this I reply 1. If it were lawfull now what hinders but they might have come together to prevent such a mischiefe as Jonathans unjust Death Sure Saul called them not together to resist himselfe in any thing Neither did his calling them together to fight against the Philistines authorize them to fight against him if it were not lawfull of it selfe Our King call'd the Parliament together yet he allowes not them to resist upon that pretence though they are undeniably not the great Councell only but the great Court of Judicature in the Kingdome This peece then of his Answer is nothing but words and pretence 2. As for his loving violence and importunity wherewith he would blanch their Resistance Grant they shewed a love to Saul because Jonathan was Sauls sonne But had Saul counted him his Enemy as he did David afterward It would have sounded harsh violence and out-ragious enough and it was plainly a great deale beyond a loving violence For Saul swore his death and they swore his life that not a haire of him should c. This was Resistance then with an Oath as it were to make Saul forsworne After this Example then our people may sweare an Association that

not one of the Parliament shall be put to death unlesse prooved guilty according to Law notwithstanding any Proclamation of them to be Traitors or condemning them to death illegally 3. And thirdly as it cannot be thought but if Saul had further attempted by himselfe or any of his followers to assault Jonathan the people would have actively resisted him and them even with armes in Jonathans defence The second Example is Davids resisting of Saul sc by gathering a band of 600. men and offering to have kept Keilah against Saul but that God told him the Keilites would have betrayed him That he sin'd not in it appeares 1. By his owne pleading his innocence even to God in his Prayers and Psalmes as farr as concern'd the busines between him and Saul 2. Himself after this pleades it to Saul 1 Sam. 24 26. and cals God to witnes that he had not transgrest at all against him 3. God himselfe discharged David from all notorious sinne excepting the matter of Vrijah 1 Kin. 1.5 Now had not his Resistance been lawfull it had been most notorious Rebellion and Treason 4. Fourthly even our Doctor condemns it not and therfore all resistance is not unlawfull much lesse damnable as he often thunders But this Example sticks with him and therfore he makes a four-fold answer 1. Davids guard that he had about him was only to secure his person against the cut-throats of Saul if sent to take away his life Reply But this could not have bin done without killing divers of them if they had assaulted him which had then bin no murther but a just defence and execution of Justice So farr himself grants lawfull 2. But he sayes it was a meer defence without any violence offer'd to Saul Therfore he still gave place as Saul pursued and did no act of hostility to him or any of his Army when they were in his power 1 Sam. 26. Reply He was not strong enough to encounter Saul in the field who had divers thousands 3000 mentioned 1 Sam. ●1 against his 600. Wisdom bids him fly as long as he could rather then fight 2. Conscience forbids him to kill Saul so I grant it doth any Subject though having the King at any such advantage But that he hurt none of his followers 1 Sam. 26. was again an act of wisdome and we need not goe to conscience for a reason of it He had only one man with him Abishai and had he offered to kill any of the Army how soone might this in all likelihood have wakened the rest and so he had endangered his own life to little purpose For he could not in probability have killed many and what had that done to his cause and defence afterward Yet also I hold not that in cold blood one or many that are upon the defensive may lawfully kill sleeping enemies or such waking farther then appears at least in some sort necessary or much advantagious to the defence and prejudiciall to the opposites But if killing as many as David could have kill'd that night himselfe and Abishai would have given hopes of ending Sauls pursuit of him and have made peace I doubt not but he would and might have done it as well as keep Keilah against him But this intent of Davids is denied For 3. The Doctor saith It is only an uncertaine supposition not fit to ground conscience in this great point of resistance Repl The Text declares it as certainly as may be unlesse it had said so in undeniable termes For 1. David contents not himselfe to aske God whether Saul would come down but what the Keilites would doe To what end that but that he meant to stay if they would stand to him 2. When God answers him only about Sauls comming he askes the second time which shewes clearly his mind ran upon staying there 3. When God told him they would betray him the Text then saith he and his men went whether they could goe which shewes they were now disappointed of their purposes and hopes of staying there and must now shift for themselves where they could When none of this will elude this example of Davids resistance the Dr. adds a fourth Answer which will strike it dead 4. To this and all other demeanours of David in his standing out against Saul We say his example was extraordinary for he was designed and annointed by the Lord to succeed Saul therfore he might use an extraordinary way for safe-guarding his person Repl But in these few words there seeme to be many errours and inconvenient expressions Doth he not imitate those that to illude Davids reason why he durst not kill Saul Say Saul was extraordinarily annointed and designed King by God and so upon him violent hands might not be laid but this holds not for other Kings elective or successive by humane Laws I do not for my part thinke their shift sufficient but beleeve it utterly unlawfull even because this is asserted by David in reference to the office of Saul as I believe being written for our learning to teach us how to carry our selvs towards all soveraign Princes But I say if he wil elude Davids act of resistance he encourages them including his forbearance Let him consider it 2. Is not what he speaks of a successour dangerous to his own Position for if Davids right of succession authorized him at all to resist may not a successor plead the like authority if in danger which yet he will not grant unles he mean to overthrow his own assertion 3. It seemes to me a strange way of answering Scripture examples unles upon stronger necessity then any thing the Doctor hath alleadged as will appeare by the scanning of all his Arguments and Texts against resistance that such a thing was extraordinary when no such thing can be gathered out of the Text. I know many men have this faculty of interpreting who yet will not suffer it against their owne assertions but with me except in undoubted failings or duties The ancient Rule holds good Praxi● sanctorum est interpres Praeceptorum David did thus against Sauls violence therfore this is not contrary to but an Interpretation of the honour due by the 5 t. Commandement 4. It is so farr from being good which the Doctor saith that contrarily Davids Unction ought rather to have strengthned his faith not to have used a way of defence which in another had been by the Doctors saying rebellious and damnable What a disparagement is this to Faith and even to Gods Honour that his annointed shall be safeguarded for so long together only by a way which in all others is abominable Credat Judaeus non ego Davids Faith then and Gods Honour in his preservation proves the meanes both lawfull and ordinary And if so then much more is it lawfull for many persons and most of all for a State-Representative in this manner to defend themselves and resist A third Example alleadged by the Doctor is the Priests resisting the

enough that her illumination hath been so farre from the endeavours of those who might have bin heard by the King and the Queen both that Ministers have bin check't for praying for Her conversion 2. But no man hath said this alone is a sufficient Cause nor was the Chief cause at the first It is well known tha● at the first and for diverse y●e●s Shee carryed her self so as those that loved the true Religion pitied her rather then severely blamed her and hoped good of her if any meanes were used for Her good But when after some yeeres a Nuncio from the Pope was brought over and setled here those about her have been more active and yet more since the Q● Mother came first over things have ripened apace and how farre Her Religion hath beene a Cause of the dangers of Scotland England and Jreland by the countenance of the Popish Party generally and multitudes of Jesuites and Priests in Court City and Country any common understanding may judge that remember specially what even a Solomon did for Out-Landish Idolairous wives which Nehemiah set so home ● 13. 3. The little businesse of her journey into Holland and the great businesse that hath been acted by meanes of that is but an unhappy comm●nt or explication of the iustnesse of feares and Jealousies from her Religion 4. As for the Doctrines and practises of these Times which the Doctor saith are not the way to make her fall in love with our Religion and draw her to it She hath little reason to be offended with them if she be pleased with the Doctrines and practises of her own Popish Religion Witnesse the Parisian Massacre the powder Treason and the present too lamentable rebellion of Ireland Let but that be compared with the worst can be imagined of our Doctrines and practises and then let her love which is fairest and meekest 3. Then he comes to the resort of Papists and his Majesties entertaining them and Davids example 1 Sam. 22.2 toward Ziba is alledged to justifie it Rep. 1. But the Dr. forgets that the time before the Parliament the Papists and popish party had undeniably made an inrode upon our Doctrine publike Worship Laws and Liberties and against them in speciall was the Militia desired to be setled by people and Parliament And after all this upon a difference about the Militia to imploy them against the Parliament sooner or later is an example beyond example and beyond the power of words to take off the exception Suppose a Woman suspected of incontinence And Popery is spirituall whoredome should take to her selfe the parties with whom she were suspected to be her servants the better to defend her honour were this a way to cleare her selfe Or a Captaine to take in Forces to defend himselfe having been challenged that they had a designe to ruine his Army or Castle 2. What charity can stretch it selfe to beleeve they intend to assist the King in maintaining the Protestant Religion and the Laws against themselves which yet his Protestations proclaime Surely some about him must needs give them other assurance or they would not be so mad as to fight for their own suppression and their Adversaries promotion 3. But if they be so good subjects as the D●maintaines and helpe the King in such an extremity must they not be counted to deserve a great reward and what can that be but Ziba-like to divide the Land A Tolleration at least they must needs expect if not indent for or be promised 4. Or if they be strong enough to overthrow the Parliament will a division content them Will they not be able to command King and All hence-forward N. B. If Protestants charity can be so sottish by this Doctors delusions as to trust to their faire dealing with Religion and Laws when the Parliament is by their force ruined they deserve no other pitty then a bewitched or distracted Man who is not afraid of Fire nor Water but let Straw or Gun-powder lye neare the one and pulls up floud-gates to give the other passage 5. Davids followers 1 Sam. 22.2 were far from Popish qualities The Text describes them thus Every one that was in distresse and every one that was in debt and every one that was discontented bitter of soule Here is not a word of all this that signifies them to be wicked A faithfull Man may be in distresse severall wayes he may be in debt through Gods hand upon him not his mispending and not able to pay but willing if he were able and resolved when he should be able and may be bitter of soule through oppression c. So that though in likelihood among so many there were some vicious Yet here is nothing to affirme that they came as vicious but as afflicted 6. Had any of them been Idolaters as Papists are had they been of confederacy with the professed enemies of Gods true Religion and people and so known then David had been too blame to have entertained them and Saul would have been sure to have laid it to his charge Neither could he ever have purged himselfe so long as he had made them his Guard that he meant to be faithfull to God and Israel And specially if Saul had before excepted against such Men as treacherous This is the Case now The enmity of Papists by their very Religion against ours our Parliament and Protestant people is known to all the world that understands any thing The Parliament hath often and often declared their feare of them these two Yeares and in reference to the setling of the Militia that so their designe on the Kingdome might be defeated The King protests not to owne them nor their helpe Yet things all along since the first discontents are still acted as they could wish and did and doe applaud And now after all this to take them into the Armies and imploy them against the Parliament is as far from Davids fact in entertaining his Troopes as their designes against the Parliament are far from his against Saul 7. It is true indeed that professed Papists were not actually entertained at the first It had been too grosse for them to have appeared at the first specially in any number and would have raised all the Kingdome against them The Ice therefore must be broke by others first and by Court-converts Of whose Religion the Priest that had lately written on the subject on which Dr. Featly had animadverted hath given a faire warning sufficient to startle any man almost To which purpose let me adde a word of a Booke I have seen cal'd Jesuitica Negotiatio printed neare 20 Yeares since by Order of the States of Frizeland which containes Instructions surprized of the Jesuites toward the Conversion of the united Provinces Among which this was one That whosoever they could convert to the Romish Religion should be still allowed to professe the Protestant Religion and keep any Office or place he was possest of and give sentence against any Papist