Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	david_n	lord_n	saul_n	2,822	5	9.9662	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85229	Conscience satisfied. That there is no warrant for the armes now taken up by subjects. By way of reply unto severall answers made to a treatise formerly published for the resolving of conscience upon the case. Especially unto that which is entituled A fuller answer. By H. Ferne, D.D. &c.	Ferne, H. (Henry), 1602-1662.	1643 (1643)	Wing F791; Thomason E97_7; ESTC R212790	78,496	95

in the concluding for resistance if the condition of it by there grants be omnibus ordinibus consentientibus and their reason for it be Rex est universis minor and resistance it selfe be an opposing of the body against the head there must be in all equity an universality in the consent and an unanimous inclination of the whole body and not a part of the body against the head and another part of the same body Secondly Mr. Bridge replies If this be our sentence why doth the Dr. object against us that the Christians in the primitive times did not take up Armes against the Emperors seeing they had not the consent of all the Orders of the Empire Pag. 13. The Doctor never intended that objecting of the Christians for an argument by it selfe and therefore to the Christians persecuted did usually subjoyn the Senate and people enslaved shewing they might not resist being all under that higher power or Supream as St. Peter cals the Emperor and contained within that universall whosoever resists SECT IX A Confutation of what was replyed upon the second Section of the former Treatise touching places of Scripture pretended for or alleadged against Resistance THe Fuller Answerer speakes confidently The instances of Resistance of the peoples in behalfe of Jonathan of Davids of Elishah's we make no use of we need them not and therefore need not Answer the refutation of them Pag. 21. But all your fellowes make use of them who having not so fine a wit to contrive a power of resistance reserved by the people when they made the first King did conceive they stood in need of Examples to defend the peoples assuming of such a power Well however this Answerer pretends he needs them not yet does he sticke upon the example of David and tels us Pag. 21. what use of His Army but to fight against nay a reach above all his fellows that David though against the King is said to fight the Lords battels 1 Sam. 25. The words are Abigails and the Comment is his more then once given us in this booke he had before spent two pages the fixth and seventh in repeating what notes he had taken at Court-Sermons now he gives us a taste of what is preached at St. Margarets and up and down the City That to fight against the King now is to fight the Lords battels or as Mr. Burrows in his Sermon that the Armies now against the King are the Hosts of the Lord and in his Epistle he cals the Earle of Essex the Lord of their Hosts so usually doe they interesse the Lord in their quarrell and are bold againe with his Titles We know that to fight the battels of the Lord was against the Enemies of his people Philistins Ammonites c. and that David was designed to it that he had done it already under Saul against the Philistins and was to doe it more fully after Sauls death against the enemies of Israel round about and accordingly the words of Abigail have this meaning though it be known that my Lord is appointed to fight the Lords battels and to deliver his people from their enemies round about yet is there risen up a man to pursue after c. Certainly if to fight against Saul had been to fight the Lords batrels David had not fought them well that declined all battel with him made use of no advantages when he had Saul twice in his power David knew the battels of the Lord which he was to fight were against the Lords enemies abroad not against the Lords annointed at home But this Answerer said what use of an Army unlesse to sight against we see David did not put it did not intend it for that use yea but he would have put it to that use at Keilah if the Inhabitants would have been faithfull to him So they conclude upon Davids intention for defending of what was actually done at Hull I call'd that an uncertain supposition not fit to ground Conscience on Mr. Burrows tels us the case is as plaine for Davids intention as if Sir John Hotham upon comming of the Kings Forces against Hull should inquire of the Townes-men whether they would deliver him up or no and upon knowledge that they would should flie away were this an uncertaine supposition that Sir John would have defended himselfe there In Sir John Hotham it would be a very probable supposition because we know the inclination of his mind and the intent for which he came thither but in David it is not onely uncertaine but improbable for we know his resolution and custome was still to flie as the King pursued and to that end he enquires what they intended against him and in case they were minded to deliver him up he might more timely provide for his flight and prevent their shutting of him up in that City which as the text notes had gates and barres M. Bridge upon the Answers in the former Treatise made to their instances of resistance replies that in saying it was a loving violence by which the people rescued Ionathan and Davids Armes were meerely for defence without all offence the Doctor gives away the Cause and allows Subjects more then prayers and teares Pag. 14.5 The Doctor had no where though M. Bridge makes him often say so prayers and teares as the onely remedy left to Subjects but beside their Cries to God he allowed them Petitions to their Prince intercessions reproofes denyall of Subsidies and Aydes and the peoples rescuing of Ionathan was by intercession set off with a Souldierly boldnesse such as the people used to David 2 Sam. 18.3 and Ioab to David 2 Sam. 19.5 Nor is it the giving away of the cause to acknowledge Davids Armes were for such defence for the severall answers returned to Davids example were given to shew they that have now taken Armes may not doe so much as David did for his example was extraordinary and also that they have done more then David did for he used those armed men meerely for his guard without all offence to Saul or them that were about him and so Davids example can no waies be pretended to those that have now taken Armes and use them as they have done If his example be extraordinary then he had an extraordinary command for what he did if so how doth the Doctor say there is no command or warrant in Scripture for such a practice or kind of Resistance Pag. 16. As if all extraordinary warrants and instincts given to speciall persons should be written in Scripture Ehud sure had one to goe and slay the Tyrant Eglon Iudg. 3. yet not expressed Or as if extraordinary Commands though expressed were warrants for all to doe so as that which the Israelites had for spoyling the Aegyptians were now good warrant for the pretended Parliamentary forces to spoile all those they call Malignants and esteem little better then Aegyptians But a meere defence how then a worke extraordinary in David ibid if his were

come shall see it yea and Mr. Bridge too if his heart be right to their amazement Nor does Charity bind the Conscience to contradictions or to judge against sense or from condemning one part when it must Iudge between two as at this time between the King and Subjects in Armes against Him which rules of Charity were laid down and applyed towards the end of the former Treatise Whosees not how tender the Parliament hath beene of the Kings Honour therefore they charge all upon His Counsellors as David ●id upon those about Saul 1 Sam. c. 26. v. 19. If the Lord hath stirred the● up against me let him accept an assering but if they be the Children of men cursed be they before the Lord for they have driven me out this day And who sees not how tender His Majesty hath been of the reputation of Parliament charging the fault upon them that give the Counsell and are the contrivers of all that is done against Him Or who see● not how Davids words agree more properly to the King that ha's been driven out and hunted up and downe then to His adversaries that have had their abode at pleasure and Raigned without Him but if they will needs speake the word let them learn this lesson from them If such as have unlawfully engaged a King cannot otherwise be brought to Justice then by Subjects taking Armes and fighting against their King it must not be done that way but by referring the matter to God as David did here The King is no more bound by vertue of His Oath to maintaine the Government of the Church as by Law established then any other Law of the Kingdome which if the King and Parliament thinke fit to repeale They may without breach of the Kings Oath Suppose they should think fit to doe it is it no more to take away a Government which had the consent of the Catholike Church and has been received and continued in this Land ever since the planting of the Christian Faith here then to repeal any Law made but yesterday in comparison and in materia particulari of no such concernment A fundamentall of the Government of the State may not be stirred nor may the priviledges of some men be touched and may the government of the Church be so easily torn up by the root and foundation the Estates and Immunities of so many free Subjects taken away But the King doth not think fit to do it shall he then by Armes be forced from that which He is both by Oath and Judgement bound to maintain Upon those words of the former Treatise the Government of the Church by Bishops is simply the best the abolishing whereof is one of those many inconveniences which this Land is now threatned with and which the King hath reason by power of Arms to divert Mr. Bridge enters upon a loose discourse against Episcopall Government I refor him for his better instruction to a book intituled Episcopacy asserted lately published and learnedly written Then he breaks out Now the Dr. shewes himselfe be had rather the Kingdome be embrewed in a bloody Warre then Episcopacy should downe Iudge yee O all Englishmen whether it bee better for you to have this order taken away then for the whole Kingdome to lye embrewed in their owne gore Nay Mr. Bridge you and your party in Armes shew your selves hereby what spirit yee are of who will have this Land embroiled in a bloody Warre rather then Episcopacy and some other things by Law justly established shall not down for that is the case and so proposed in the former Treatise and then judge all yee English men whether it be better for you to embrew this Kingdome in its own Gore then to hold the ancient and primitive Government of the Church and hear O Heavens and judge upon whom the guilt will lye upon the King that will continue that Government according to Law and oath or upon them that by Armes would force Him from it To that of Sauls speare restored Master Bridge replies Though restored before demanded yet not before Saul had humbled himselfe to David saying I have sinned J will no more doe thee harm because my soule was precious in thy sight this day We know what you looke for If you blush not yet to have expected it His Majesty has not been ashamed to doe it with a great condescention He has even supplicated for Peace He has redressed former miscarriages of Government with new additionalls of Grace He has promised and protested for the future Oh that He could say My Soule has been precious in your eyes this day this whole yeere or that He could finde answerable humility in the hearts of Subjects whose Ambition has caused His troubles and our miseries The Doctor defends the Kings entertainment of Papists by Davids example but he must prove that Ziba or those that resorted to David in his distresse were of another Religion and by Law to be disarmed What needs that for the Doctor intended onely by those examples to shew that a Prince in His necessary defence may entertaine such men as otherwise He would not make use of and may give some countenance to such as have relieved Him in distresse though otherwise as ill deserving His Grace as a dissembling Ziba And though by Law Papists are not to have Armes at their disposing yet are they not quit of the duty and service of Subjects they may by just authority beare Armes to use them according to the direction of that authority and if a List of the Army against his Majesty were examined there would be found if not a confiderable number of Papists yet of such as they that imploy them would have cause to be ashamed of such as by Law are to abjure the Land as men not to be held in with any government Upon the former particulars the Fuller Answerer is more bitter and malicious interpreting every thing that had sharpnesse in it as spoken of the Parliament It was said That in such a case the State would be unreasonably exposed to the danger that every prevailing Faction might bring upon it This is according to this mans interpretation to call the Parliament a prevailing Faction It was said That the people are made to believe by their good teachers that the King was so and so affected to whom no more need be said then the Archangell did to he Arch-accuser The Lord rebuke thee also that their preachings were the doctrines of this giddy age and that many wicked Pamphlets and bookes written by Enemies to Peace were suffered to issue forth into every corner of this Land This is according to this mans apprehension to call the Parliament Declarations wi●ked Pamphlets and scandalous imputations of this giddy ag● and to liken them to the Devill the Arch-accuser I had need say again to this man the Lord rebuke thee Lastly it was said If the Papist will shew himselfe a good Subject it is just and reasonable that