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	lord_n	saul_n	9,635	5	10.3237	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A29573	An apologie of John, Earl of Bristol consisting of two tracts : in the first, he setteth down those motives and tyes of religion, oaths, laws, loyalty, and gratitude, which obliged him to adhere unto the King in the late unhappy wars in England : in the second, he vindicateth his honour and innocency from having in any kind deserved that injurious and merciless censure, of being excepted from pardon or mercy, either in life or fortunes.	Bristol, John Digby, Earl of, 1580-1654.	1657 (1657)	Wing B4789; ESTC R9292	74,883	107

binding and obliging which are deduced from the word of God I shall therefore first begin with those religious and pious Motives which have in Conscience restrained me from taking Arms against the King or making to him any hostile Resistance For I desire it to be understood that when I speak of Resistance I alwaies understand Actual and Hostile Resistance For I well know that in things in themselves sinfull mala in se I ought rather to obey God than Men And in such Cases suffering is a full performance of our Duty of Obedience Nay in Cases only illegal non illicita but illegalia against publique or private Right as if a Prince shall infringe the known undoubted Prilileges of the Kingdom or of Parliament or command that which is destructive unto them The Weapons of our Resistance ought to be Replyes Petitions Remonstrances Nay we may withold our free-will-Offerings though not our Tributes of Dutie we may stop our voluntarie supplies of giving Subsidies we may make a stand in the transactions of affairs untill the King condescendeth to do us Right as hath been often practised As it was in the Case of the Earl of Arundel who being restrained and kept from sitting in Parliament in the year 1626. by the King without cause shewn The House of Peers sate many daies silent without debating or transacting any Business untill he should be restored to his libertie and place in Parliament or cause shewed for his detention But to take Arms or to use Acts of force this is the Resistance which ought not to be used and is neither justifiable by the Laws of God nor of the Kingdom And this Resistance I am far from being satisfied in my Conscience may be used by any subjects against their lawfull and undoubted Soveraign The places in Scripture both in the old and new Testament commanding by positive precept our obedience and forbidding Resistance to the Powers ordeined over us by God are many But the Arguments of necessary deduction are infinite whereas Resistance is no where commanded or allowed And the Arguments by way of Deduction which are made use of to tollerate the Subjects taking of Arms against their Soveraign are by putting some places of Scripture upon wrack and torture to make them speak their sense whereas it is an undeniable Rule in Schools That Inferences and deductions cannot justifie the breach of plain duties injoyned by any one positive precept of Scripture In the old Testament it was death to disobey much more hostilely to resist the supream Authority by positive precept Deut. 17.10 Joshua 1.18 So it was to resist Parents And certainly in States and Common-wealths tam Pater Nemohe is Pater patriae and all the civill power that was of old in Paternall Iurisdiction is now by the Consent and Common Agreement of the People placed in the supream power of a State and the same obedience is due to it and resistance to it as unjustifiable And such as will indulge to the People a freedome to resume their first Original Power grounded upon that Maxime Omnis homo nascitur liber every man is born free seduce them by so false a Principle that the contrary of it is the truth Nullus homo nascitur liber no man is born free Neither was there ever yet in this world anyone man born free It is true there was one man created free our first father Adam But all his Children and all his Descent after him were born under Paternall Iurisdiction Nay our blessed Saviour speaking of him as a Man and Son to the blessed Virgin was born under this Paternal Jurisdiction and filial Obedience whereunto he submitted himself as is plainly set down Scripture Luke the 2.51 where it is said He went with Joseph and his Mother and was subject unto them Now this Paternal Jurisdiction which was at first the sole Soveraignty which governed the world By reason of Partiality in Parents Oppression by such as were the strongest and a multitude of inconveniences and confusions when the World was become numerous and full of People and every family become a Realm As it was too narrow so it grew to be so hurtful unto Mankind That men were forced for their own preservation Common Justice and comfort of life to transfer this paternal Jurisdiction all but filial and personal Duty of honoring and obeying Parents into Magistracy and willingly divested themselves for their own good of that Native Libertie which they had before And as the right power of Government is the same which it was in paternall Iurisdiction only by the Consent of the People changed into another hand So the Obedience unto it ought to be the same And the fifth Commandement of obeying Parents is by all understood to extend unto the Magistrate to whom the people having by consent tranferred the power of paternal Jurisction are likewise by Divine Precept bound to obedience and the People cannot still retein unto themselves that which by common consent they have divested themselves of and transferred to others So was it in the Common-Wealth of Rome when by lex Regia the people had transferred all their power to the Emperour they were not to resist And it was to those Emperours to whom our Saviour and his Apostles injoined Obedience not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake and not unto the good only but unto the froward David was pursued by Saul unjustly his life sought by him yet his Conscience check'd him when he had only cut off the lap of Sauls garment 1 Sam. 24.5 6. But when the attempting upon his person was mentioned he then cryed out Who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Anointed and be guiltlesse 1 Sam. 26.9 Nay when he might have slain Saul and he was desired by Abishai that he might strike him to the ground he did not only forbid him but called unto Abner telling him he deserved to die that he had not more carefully kept and guarded his Master vers. 15 16. which sheweth that not only not to hurt but to preserve is our Duty And truly if I should have lift up my hand or drawn my Sword against the King I fear I should not have been so happy as divers have been that have gone the other way in finding out such satisfactory Arguments or distinctions as would have rid or cured me of that horrour of Conscience which would have made me most miserable in the height of all prosperitie and successe All the whole context of the old Testament incite to the obedience to the honouring fearing and reverencing of the King And all the Attempts that have been made upon the persons of Kings or their Government are either condemned as wicked or else were by the extraordinary and especial Commandement of God making use of wicked men to be the Executioners of his just Judgments Besides the Government of the Jewish Commonwealth was a Theocratia an immediate Government of God himself and by the Consent of all Divines