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
A79833	The golden rule, or, Justice advanced. Wherein is shewed, that the representative kingdom, or Commons assembled in Parliament, have a lawfull power to arraign, and adjudge to death the King, for tyranny, treason, murder, and other high misdemeanors: and whatsoever is objected to the contrary from Scripture, law, reason, or inconveniences, is satisfactorily answered and refuted. Being, a cleer and full satisfaction to the whole nation, in justification of the legal proceeding of the High Court of Justice, against Charls Steward, late King of England. The first part. / By John Canne.	Canne, John, d. 1667?	1649 (1649)	Wing C440; Thomason E543_6; ESTC R204183	32,291	40

King to accuse and punish him Groti de jure bell pac l. 1 cap. 4. The second is He may saith he be punished as a private man 4. Objec That place in Psal 105.14.15 is usually objected Touch not mine anointed This by Royallists is applied to Kings as a prohibition that no man touch them so as to hurt their Persons Answ 1. The words in the Prophet do not at all concern Kings but were spoken directly and immediatly of the Patriarks their wives families walking as strangers from Nation to Nation the which is evident by vers 6. by the whole serious of the Psalm which is historical some places of Genesis to which the words relate Gen. 12. 10. to 20. ch 20. 26. 1. to 29. and the general confession of all Expositors on the place The Cavalliers had in one of their Colours which was taken by the Scots at the battle of Marston July 2. Anno 1644. the Crown and the Prelates mitre painted with these words Nolite tangere Christos meos so that it seems the antichristian mitre claims here a share with the crown But 2. Admit this Scripture should be so meant which is not so yet nothing can be hence rightly gathered that Kings should be exempted from Arrests Imprisonments or Sentence of death it self For 1. If we take it spiritually for the internal oyl of the Spirit as this annointing is common to subjects as wel as Kings so it must follow necessarily that in their persons they are no more exempted from arraignment and capital censures than other men 2. Admit it be meant of an actual external Anointing yet that in it self affords Kings no greater priviledge than the inward unction of which it is a type neither can it priviledge them from the just corporal sentence of all kinds and this is manifest in Sihon Og Adonibezek Eglon Agag Joram Ahaziah Jehoaz and others who by Princes and subjects of another nation were apprehended and slain and justly as all grant without exception Besides Kings who are subordinate homagers and subjects to other Kings and Emperours though annointed may for treasons and rebellions against them be lawfully judged to death and executed as appears by sundry presidents in our own and forraign Histories Yea the Roman Greek and Germane Emperors have been Imprisoned Deposed and some of them judicially judged to death by their own Senates Parliaments and States for their oppression and tyranny So the ancient Kings of France Spain Arragon Brittain Hungarie Poland Denmark Bohemia India c. that justly notwithstanding any pretence of being anointed Soveraigns And it is by Grotius confessed Grot. de Jur. bel pac l. 1 cap. 4 That the People may punish the King to death for matters capital if so it be agreed on betwixt king and the people as in Lacedemonia 3. If the Scope and Sence of this Text be duly weighed it is so far from affording Kings any corporal immunities or exemption from punishment as it cleerly speaks the contrary For the words are not spoken of Kings but by God Himself spoken unto Kings that they should not touch his Spiritual anointed Saints men consecrated unto him by the oyl of the Spirit But you wil say What if they touch Gods anointed even spoil and murder them for his sake I answer The Law Gen. 9.6 excepteth none the dearest that nature knoweth are not excepted Who so sheddeth mans blood by man shall his blood be shed The Supream Court of Justice is here highly concerned Thus saith the Lord Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction therefore thy life shall go for his life and thy people for his people 1 King 20.42 5. obiect Davids often sparing of Saul though in his hand is often object And Dr. Gauden in his late Letter to his Excellency saies You cannot be ignorant of Davids both consciencious and generous respect to Sauls safety and life whom he leaves to Gods justice by no usurpation of power successes or opportunities of revenge page 7. Ans 1. There is nothing from Davids carriage towards Saul in this particular but to bring it into a short account is thus Subjects ought not wilfully or purposely to murder or offer violence to the person of the King specially in their cold blood when he doth not actually assault them nor have a lawful power judiciously to proceed against him 2. But more particularly I answer The difference was but private and personal between Saul David David being Sauls private subject servant and son-in-law not publick between Saul and his Parliament or Kingdom Now many things are unlawful in private quarrels which are just and honourable in publick differences Saul intended no Arbitrary government nor to make Israel a conquered people nor yet to cut off all the godly under the pretence of hereticks and sectaries neither to destroy laws liberties and Parliaments nor came Saul against these Princes Elders and People who made him King only David's head would have made Saul lay down his arms 3. Howsoever some reasons may be given wherefore David spared Saul as 1. Being his father-in-law and lord too and so it would have been thought somewhat an unnaturall act in him and savoured too much of private revenge and ambition aspiring to the Crown before due time 2. By his lenity to convince Saul and reclaim him from his bloody pursuit and cleer his innocency to the world And lastly Manifest his dependance upon God and his special promise that he should enjoy the crown after Saul by divine appointment neverthelesse if these and other Scriptures be well perused Saul and David soldiers if not David himself conceived that David might with safe conscience have punished him as well as pittied him 1 Sam. 24.10.11 12.17.18 26.23.24 Expedient I confesse it was for the considerations mentioned to spare him but whether the thing in soro Dei and in it self altogether unlawful had he slain him specially after he had killed the Priests and destroyed both men and women children and sucklings in Nob 1 Sam. 22.18.19 I leave to the judicious Reader to think of 6. Objec That place 1 Sam 8.9 and ver 11. is much alleadged to prove both the absolute power of a King and the unlawfulnesse of resistance a Grot. de Jur. bel pac lib. 1. c. 4. n. 3. Hugo Grotius b Barcl cont mon l. 2. p. 64. Barclay c Arnis de fur 6. Mai. c. 1. n. 3. p. 157 158. Arnisaeus d Dr. Fern 3. p. Sect. 2. p. 10. Dr. Fern and others argue thus that by this place The People oppressed with the injuries of a tyrannous King have nothing left them but prayers and tears to God and will have us distinguish inter officium Regis potestatem between the Kings office and the Kings power and it cannot be ver 9.11 the custome and manner of the King but must be the