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
A70705	The letter which was sent to the author of the doctrine of passive obedience and jure divino disproved, &c. answered and refuted wherein is proved, that monarchy was not originally from God. That kings are not by divine appointment, but that all government proceeds from the people. That the obedience required in Scripture, is to the laws of the land, and no otherwise. That resisting of arbitary power is lawful. That the oath of allegiance to to the late King James was dissolved before the Prince of Orange (our present King) landed. That upon the non-performance of an oath on one side, the other becomes void, is plainly prov'd from several examples in scripture. That protection is the only cause of allegiance, and that obedience or allegiance is due to the present government is proved from Scripture, law and reason; and those texts of scriptures which relate to government, or monarchy, are explained.	True son of the Church of England.; True son of the Church of England. aut; N. N. aut; A. A. aut	1689 (1689)	Wing N45; ESTC R223803	26,704	41

is not lawful to persecute contrary to the Laws of the Land it follows that it is lawful to withstand such Persecution And is it not better to dye with the Sword in the Hand in defence of the Gospel and its True Religion against a False one which is endeavoured to be be set up contrary to the Law of God and the Countrey than to be forced by Cruel Tortures and Persecutions to worship god in an Idolatrous way But some may object It can be no Real Idolatry without the Heart joyns with the Ceremony of the Body yet an outward Idolatry is a great sin But who can secure to us that our Children or Childrens Children shan't be Real Idolaters Then the sin of Idolatry which they shall be guilty of will be laid at our Doors when by a timely Defence we might have prevented it 13. Kings 't is true were made to govern and protect the People the People to reverence and obey their Kings both Kings and People to serve God and keep his Commandments The People are obliged to obey their King in every Act of Command of his which does not derogate from the Law of God and the Nation 14. The Design of the Corporation-Oath was most plainly to prevent all Rebellions upon any pretence whatsoever Can any man be so mad as to think the Parliament did give up themselves and the Community to obey whatever the King should command For what is it else if the Oath of Allegiance or Corporation-Oath is to be taken in the strictest sence This were to make the King a Tyrant by Law or at least allowing him to be such No Oath is or can be binding beyond the Design of the Giver It is plain these Oaths were not designed for our Ruine and therefore cannot be taken or kept in that sence All Oaths to a Governour or Government are designed for the Good Safety and Wellfare of the Governed as well as the Governour So no Oath can bind us to our own Destruction though Lawful Authority should command such an Oath it were a Sin to take it but much greater to keep it because such Subjection is inhumane and contrary to the very Design of Government both from God and Man and the lesser Evil ought to be chosen before the greater Rebellion is resisting the Lawful Power of the Government but it is no more Rebellion to resist the Unlawful and Exorbitant Power of the Prince than War Tyler or Jack Cade c. They are Rebels who arm against the Government which is the Laws not they that arm to defend it 14. David made no Resistance at all neither Offensive nor Defensive As for your Negative Resistance by Flight as you term it I do not understand it As for the Forces which he had about him it 's most probable that he raised them for no other purpose but to be Spies and Scouts to give intelligence of Saul 's Ambushments For what would Six Hundred Men have signified to Saul 's Numerous Army had it been David 's intent to have made any Resistance We read indeed that Athaliah was deposed but what was the Reason Not because she was a monstrous Vnnatural Tyrant but because she was an Vsurper He who does not obey the Commands of his Prince when according to Law makes Negative Resistance because he resists the Law and by consequence the Prince What could David mean by having Six Hundred Men but to secure his Person and make positive resistance if he had been forced to a strait and could not have secur'd himself otherwise Surely Fifty or an Hundred Men would have been enough for Spies and Scouts Could not God have delivered Saul's Numerous Army into the Hands of his Six Hundred Men as well as the Numerous Army of the Amalekites into the Hands of but Four Hundred of his Men 1 Sam 30.10.17 1 Sam 26.9 David said to Abishai Destroy him not for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord 's Annointed and be guiltless Abishai had a Design to destroy Saul and in stretching forth his Hand with that Design had been a great sin But he that defends himself from his Prince who though in his own Person contrary to the Laws of the Countrey endeavours to take away his Life and being reduced to a strait 't is not properly to be said stretching forth his hand against him when at the same time he designs not to kill him or do him any harm but to disarm him and secure himself Joash was made King of Israel and Athaliah was slain but it may with more Reason be thought for murthering all the King's Sons except Joash who was hid from her than for Usurping the Throne for there is not the least mention made of the cause of her death 2 Kings 11. For do we not find in the next Chap. vers 20. that Joash was killed by his Servants but so soon as the Kingdom was confirmed to Amaziah his Son he slew his Servants which had slain his Father The Proofs of Scripture which I quote have a particular Relation to the Primitive Christians under the Heathen Emperours and to the Children of Israel and 't was usual with God to set up one King over his People the Jews and pull down another for their Misgovernment But we cannot expect God to act so for us because he does not set up or appoint our Kings therefore we ought to turn out such Governours who endeavour to destroy the Government and set up such who will preserve it 16. Neither an Invasion actually made or eminently feared by a Foreign Power doth authorise Subjects to depose their King. We have not deposed the King neither was there any other design than to recover our Rights and Priviledges and secure them for the time to come to our Posterity which every man is bound to endeavour it being for the Common Good of the Nation against the destructive designs of the Prince But by what Reason say some should King James lose the Right he was born to and by the Law ought to have To which I answer If King James had kept to Law he had never lost his Rights for in so doing the Subjects were bound to assist and defend those Rights but if King James invading the Rights of his Subjects and endeavouring to support that Power by Force if by Force he lose his Rights he may thank himself for invading the Rights of others Does not a man though free-born forfeit his life by firing of a House Robbing c. which are but particular Calamities and shall not a Prince who is guilty of a General Calamity by destroying the Laws and endeavouring to inslave the Nation lose the Right of Governing that Nation which is infinitely more reasonable than that the other should suffer death The Law allows a particular man for just Causes to disinherit his eldest Son and settle his Estate upon others of his Posterity for the preserving of his Family What Reason can be given in an