Selected quad for the lemma: hand_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A43909
|
The History of self-defence, in requital to the history of passive obedience
|
Seller, Abednego, 1646?-1705.
|
1680
(1680)
|
Wing H2138B; Wing S2456_CANCELLED; ESTC R14596
|
33,640
|
35
|
Instance I shall begin with is that of David when King Saul sought to take his life away that he might secure the Kingdom the better to his Posterity I need not particularly insist on that which first prompted Saul thereto nor mention all the passages that fell out then but however this is certain that David if it was not upon the account of his defending his life against the unjust Attempts of King Saul would not have had such a Train for otherwise it had been far more easy for him to have escaped privately by himself or one or two with him than with 600 Men at his back and it may likewise be evineed from his words to Abiathar who fled to David when Doeg the Edâ—mite by the appointment of Saul cut off all his Fathers House Stay with me fear not for he that seeketh my life seeketh thy life but thou shalt be sufe with me Now I would fain know what Gloss else Author would out upon these words for if David had not those men with design to defend himself against Saul and his Parties he should send out to take him what comfort could that be to Abiathar that upon a Party of them coming against them he would surrender himself and so he would bear Abiathar Company in Death For tho' it be a trite Prowerb Solamen miseris socios habuisse malorum est yet David would have been but a Jobs Comforter to him to tell him Well now you are come to me fear not you and I will not resist the Lords Anointed but whenever he sends a party to apprehend us we will patiently undergo death together since it had been more comfortable for him to have died with the rest of his Fathers Family and not have survived their Destruction But the last words of the Verse should any man be so stupid as to put such a Gloss upon these Words would confute them viz. Thou shalt be safe with me which undoubtedly import this I will defend thy Life as I will my own to the utmost And tho' it be certain that David fled several times before Saul whither he could yet the reason why he did so is expresly mentioned in Scripture viz. For fear of Saul because he had much more numerous Forces with him and so could have easily cut off him and his Men and besides he being in League with Jonathan so as he acknowledged even the Crown to be his due after his Fathers Death he knew that if he could ward off the Blow till Sauls Death he should have no reason to fear which made him to seek no more than only to shun encountring with him but had he been so shut up as that there had been no visible way of escape without fighting him and his Forces there is not the least doubt to be made but he would have opposed him to the utmost It is worth the while here to observe that Saul pursued David only upon a private spight and as a private man we do not hear of any Incroachment made upon the Priviledges and Liberties of the People in General but that Saul acquitted himself indifferently as to that save in cutting off Abimelech and his Sons and that upon a presumptive Treason in harbouring and assisting with Arms and Victuals one whom he had declared Rebel quo Jure quave Injuria is not material And we need not look back 100 years to find more arbitrary proceedings than this was And if it was lawful for David to defend his Life thus against that King and his Forces who shed as many Prayers and Tears as ever any of our Non-resistance men had as good Audience and did likewise send forth many upon this account yet would not lye down in the Myre and pray to God to save him by a Miracle to save his own private life much more is it lawful for a Community to defend their Religion Lives and Liberties against Princes who go about to subvert the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom And tho' at 2 several times when David had King Saul delivered into his Hands he would not cut him off or do him the least hurt yet that makes nothing for their purpose for there is no doubt to be made but that there were a great many in the Parliament Army who would not have done the least harm to the person of King Charles I. I shall conclude this with what St. Chrysostom says of it Hom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vol. 2. p. 105. Who introduces David speaking on this wise when he fled from before Saul and had Goliahs Sword with him and put himself into a Posture of Defence It is better for me to be miserable and to suffer more hardship than that Saul should be condemned by God for the Murther of an Innocent person c. I cannot here but take notice of a Passage of Scripture that has been egregiously wrested by our Non-resistance Men that which was spoken by the Prophet Samuel to Saul upon his not obeying the Command of God when he was ordered to destroy the Amalekites viz. REBELLION IS AS THE SIN OF WITCH-CRAFT which has been used by them as an Argument for Non resistancetill it 's become Thred bare and yet any ordinary capacity may see the weakness of it since the Rebellion here immediately spoken of was not that of Subjects against a Prince tho' none will deny that that which is really Rebellion is undoubtedly a great sin but that of King Saul against God So that this is very far fetcht when used for an Argument against whatever those Gentlemen are pleased to Interpret Rebellion And I am ready to Conjecture that it may have some allusion to what fell out towards the latter end of Sauls Reign viz. His going upon Gods deserting him to consult with the Witch of Endor 1 Sam. 28. And so his Rebellion was as his Witch-craft the one having been committed in the beginning of his Reign and the other upon the last day of his Reign or thereabouts for next day or 2 he was slain by the Philâ—shines Tho' this be but a Conjecture yet it seems as little to wrest the meaning of the Text as their Gloss No less impertinently are those words of Samuel when he was offended at that peoples making choice of a King This shall be the manner of the King that shall rule over you applyed when they would thereby evince that a King may lawfully do whatever he please Whereas he is only there telling them the Inconveniency of an evil King and yet all the while he never spoke a word of Non-resistance as their Soveraign Duty Yea most particulars there mentioned are such as all Subjects willingly allow to Kings and for that of taking their Vineyards from them we never read of its being put in Practice for Ahab himself who was a very wicked King did not take away Naboths Vineyard but proffered him one as good for it as is clear from 1 Kings 21.2 3. And when he refused