Selected quad for the lemma: hand_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
hand_n	david_n	king_n	saul_n	6,232	5	10.0779	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

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

Aristocratically But there must alwayes be Judges and inferiour officers in a large Dominion or all government is lost Will the Doctor say that the hands that have lift up the Judge or Officer to his seat that is the Kings hands may not bee lift up against him to pull him downe and pull off his Robes or take the Sword out of his hand The interest that God hath in him shall it preserve him in his Office in case especially of Mal-Administration But shall it or hath it done even so long as no offence is proved against him The Parliament hath indeed desired it for Judges and great Officers but hath it been granted Or what meanes the putting out of so many old Justices of Peace lately without any Crime alleadged against them at all of which more Countreys then one have at the Assises complained as a great grievance What will the Doctor say to this Yet they were Gods Ministers and had the Sword committed to them If hee say the King was their Superiour and so might take their Authoritie away but the people is not Superiour to the King REPLY This satisfies not because notwithstanding here is a Person in whom GOD hath an interest and who is his Minister deprived of his Authoritie not only when he abuses it but meerely at pleasure The Drs. Reason then hath no strength in it thus faare or this done to inferiour Magistrates is not lawfull 2. But secondly what strength is in his Argument lies in the Kings being GODS anointed and therefore the Crowne may not be taken from his Head by Men this I have granted him before and am so farre from recalling or disputing against that I will adde this word of confirmation to it Supposing wee speake of such a Prince or Monarch call him King or Emperour or Duke or what you will that is not deposeable by the expresse Lawes of that Common-Wealth as the Duke of Brabant was and the Duke of Venice is for such as those Dukes were not properly supreame nor GODS immediate Vicegerents as Saul and David and the like I say then that though in case of Mal-Administration an inferiour Magistrate may be Lawfull and most justly and necessarily deposed by the Kings Authoritie I will not say the like so long as they carry themselves well and are not meerely Annuall Officers who also are glad usually when their yeare is out because their Office is a burthen and charge yet a Supreame may not by the people because hee is GODS immediate Vicegerent and so specially owned by Him and have none upon Earth unto whom GOD by any expression in his Word hath given Authoritie over them to take their Crownes from their Heads I say againe as a Wife cannot take away her Husbands Authority because she is in no sence above him So unlesse the Law of that State name a Superiour to him that is in Tittle the Prince to take his Crowne from him in such a case he cannot be deposed by the Law of GOD which appoints no persons to do such a thing to illustrate which Let me adde that in those times when GOD allowed by the Judiciall Law a Man to put away his Wife It did not allow a Woman to put away or forsake her Husband though I know about our Saviours Time Iosephus relates of Women having gotten that among the Iewes at least some of them as hee instances in Salome sister to Herod the Great who put away her Husband But GOD allowed it not And so that may bee lawfull for a Prince who is Superiour to doe to an Inferiour Magistrate which is not lawfull for the people to doe to the Prince who is Supreme no not in a like case of Mal-Administration I could instance in sundry other Prerogatives in GODS Word to Superiours which hold not no not in like cases to Inferiours but it needs not with the Parliament as hath been oft said 2. But whereas the Dr. addes Nor to take the Sword out of his hand This is inconsequent divers wayes First himselfe in the former SECTION in the case of Elisha granted a private man might resist the Kings Messenger and even hold the Kings owne hands sure he may he doth that while equivalently take the Sword out of his hand Secondly the people tooke it out of Sauls hand when he would have put Ionathan illegally to death Thirdly If hee would kill himselfe it may be taken out of his hand 4. Since out of all question GOD never put it into his hands to kill the Innocent nor much lesse to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties he being GODS anointed and GODS Minister for good c. hinders not the taking the Sword so long out of his hand till it hath beene sufficiently imployed to punish those Malefactors and delinquents which he should but will not strike with it or rather will defend and imploy S. Yet I say further to doe that which the Parliament hath done supposing the necessity of which hereafter is not to take the Sword out of his hand himselfe grants as was noted before in his Answer to the 19. Propositions that the two Houses have a legall power to punish even such as doe violence being his followers or Favourites though countenanced with some surr●ptiously gotten Command from the King and moreover that they have power more than sufficient to prevent and restraine Tyrannie Their setling the M●litia in safe hands and the Navy and securing Hull is by them declared to be for no other end nor their raising an Army since If then those that they would punish bee Delinquents and if in them whom the King trusts there bee though not at all in the King an intention to bring in a Tyranny even with Armes and to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties which is the state of the present Question then by the Kings owne grants as aforesaid they may Legally and Lawfully take the Sword into their hands and doe not take it out of Kings but his wicked Followers 6. But because the Dr. closes his Assertion with saying This will not a a true informed Conscience dare to doe REPLY I will be bold to try whether Conscience many not say It dares doe no other then than this latter so farre to take the Sword into their hands whether even his Tower of Battery Rom. 13.21 not by what hath beene said formerly and even now so wonne from him as it is become ours to beat down his Principle in this first Question to the very dust Secondly I say the Parliament is a Power ordained of God it is the Minister of God It is to be a Terrour to evill Workes It is to be a Revenger to execute Wrath on them that doe evill It is to watch continually as GODS Minister in th●s very thing and so fo● the prayse of them that doe well and so the secu●i●g of Religion Lawes and Liberties it is not to beare the Sword in vaine And a sword it hath by the Kings owne sentence to the