Selected quad for the lemma: hand_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
hand_n	anoint_v	lord_n	stretch_v	6,479	5	11.5931	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A40488	A friendly debate between Dr. Kingsman, a dissatisfied clergy-man, and Gratianus Trimmer, a neighbour minister concerning the late thanksgiving-day, the Prince's desent [sic] into England, the nobility and gentries joining with him, the acts of the honourable convention, the nature of our English government, the secret league with France, the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, &c. : with some considerations on Bishop Sanderson and Dr. Falkner about monarchy, oaths, &c. ... / by a minister of the Church of England.	Kingsman, Dr.; Minister of the Church of England.; Trimmer, Gratianus.	1689 (1689)	Wing F2218; ESTC R18348	69,303	83

But if they intended no more than the Safety of a Legal King acting Legally from ill Principles and Practices of bad Men then the Note of Universality whatsoever was never intended to subject the Kingdom to Arbitrary Dominion and then it will follow that they who took this Oath are no further bound than to an Universal Obedience to the lawful Commands of the King and are not guilty of Perjury by their late taking Arms for they did not design to break the Yoke of Government by Rebellion Not only the Author of the Enquiry into the Bounds of Obedience but also the most Reverend Arch-bishop Vsher in his Treatise of the Power of a Prince and Subjection and Obedience doth interpret the Note of Vniversality All Ephes 5.24 Col. 3.20 with a limitation p. 143 145. K. But those Commands are Affirmative and this Oath is Negative It is not lawful upon any Pretence whatsoever binds at all Times and to a total universal abstinence from taking Arms. And those Commands require Active Obedience with a limitation and if we cannot actually obey we must suffer and not rebel but bear even with a Tyrant for the Laws have prohibited the Subjects to take up Arms they have no Law that makes it lawful in any Case to take up Arms therefore they must be Passive The Law is against Arms therefore it is unlawful they have no right to the Sword therefore it is unlawful for them to take it T. As Subjects they may not but as a Party I ask you why they may not I cannot speak to every Branch of your Objection Besides what I have said I am in reason constrained to think and speak that the late King acting as he did did not act as King and that his Attempts were growing more intollerable and that as there is no Provision in any Laws for the Peoples taking of Arms so there is none which forbids them to defend the Government the Legislative Power and Religion established There is no Law nor Right to bear out the King in doing as he did He broke the Foundations first and in reason if the King may defend his Soveraignty from the Invasion of his Rebellious Subjects so the several Degrees and Ranks of the Kingdom may defend the Government from being changed and their Properties Liberties Religion and Lives from being destroyed If a King shall set himself against the Constitution and the Publick Good he is no longer that King to whom the Laws oblige us And is it not plain to every Man that seeing he could not have his way in Governing or rather Dissolving he will no longer abide in the Kingdom To suppose that the Laws would provide in what Cases a King may turn Tyrant and allow him to turn the Militia against the Kingdom and in what Cases the Kingdom may take the Sword against the King is to suppose such a Law as would be inconsistent with the Constitution For as the King would never pass an Act that should make it lawful for Subjects to rise in Arms against him so it is not to be thought that the Lords and Commons should consent to such a Law as would enable the King to destroy the Government Religion and Laws The Consent of King and Parliament in not to be supposed to make such a Law for one against the other and without the consent of both Parties there could be no Law. And such a Law would not prove safe to the Government which is preserved by Union As the Subjects run the hazard of Life and Estate if they rebel so the King doth run the hazard of his Crown if he usurp and make himself to be what the Law hath not made him but directly contrary To conclude this Head. How many Violations had we been guilty of even of all the Bonds of Nature and Religion if the Papists and their Loyal Friends had not been opposed at this Time. And though in this Case it is lawful for a People a free People by the Constitution to preserve Themselves and Posterity from Slavery and Idolatry yet it is unlawful for Subjects as far as they are Subjects to rebel against their King and it had been happy that Oath had never been enjoined if any took it ignorantly and rashly or brake it in their Hearts intentionally or were actually the occasion of promoting Arbitrary Power and Popery by it or had any Design against the King's Dignity out of Revenge or for private E●ds the Lord grant unto them Repentance for the forgiveness of their Sin and cleanse the Land from the guilt of multitudes of Oaths not well understood nor kept K. But we know the Scripture is plain against Resistance and we have many Examples against Resistance and for Passive Obedience And our Homilies condemn it and the Friends of the Church of England have always been Guiltless T. Shew me if you can any thing in Scripture Precept or Example that condemns such an Action as this was in the Circumstances of Persons and Causes The Homilies do insist much upon the Example of David David's Example I allow what they teach But I will make the Case worse than David's was Had Saul brought in Foreign Forces and turn'd his Strength against the Kingdom and done all after the manner of the King 1 Sam. 8. it had been utterly unlawful for David and all the People of Israel to take Arms against Saul or depose Him for there was a Law of God binding them to make him King whom the Lord should choose as he chose Saul See the 17th of Deut. 14 15. The Case of David and ours differ as much as the Case of a private Subject and a free People as we were when the King set Himself to do as he did David though appointed to be King was but a private and particular Subject under Saul and Saul was nominated and appointed King by God himself and it was God's express Law Thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose Deut. 17.15 And when David gave this Reason why he would not do what his Party would have had him do he said God forbid I should do this thing unto my Master the Lord 's Annointed to stretch forth mine Hand against Him seeing he is the Annointed of the Lord 1 Sam. 24.6 His autem Verbis David tantùm spectabat Institutum Dei. David regarded the Appointment of God. Ergo injussu Dei non debeo eum dejicere Therefore without God's Command I ought not depose him Pet. Martyr on the words And that Learned and Reverend Man answering the Reasons of some who thought David might lawfully have killed Saul gives the Reasons why he could not They say David was King. Esto be it so saith P. Martyr but he was not publickly inaugurated Vim vi repellere licet say they Fateor I confess it is lawful to repel Force with Force saith P. Martyr Sed inculpatâ tutelâ with an innocent or blamless