Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	david_n	king_n	saul_n	12,106	5	9.9774	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49780	Marriage by the morall law of God vindicated against all ceremonial laws of popes and bishops destructive to filiation aliment and succession and the government of familyes and kingdoms	Lawrence, William, 1613 or 14-1681 or 2.	1680 (1680)	Wing L690; ESTC R7113	397,315	448

between them and the Prince they never pretend any such thing as Consecration in either but a civil Contract obliged by mutual Oaths To shew some farther Authority therefore that never any Pope of Rome or Ralf of Canterbury or other Bishop had any Authority from Christ in the New or the Prophets or Priests in the Old Testament to make Tradition of a Crown to any Temporal Prince but the same belonged to the People or their Representative who were to be Subjects It is evident 1. as to Christ John 18.36 His Kingdom is not of this World 2. He never had any Crown but that of Thorns Matth. 27.29 Nor any Robes but the seamless Coat John 19.23 As to the Prophets and Priests in the Old Testament they never made Tradition of any Crown to any King of Israel or Judah but they received them from the People such as wore them and not from any Prophet or Priest for though Nunrod as is already mention'd alledged or feigned before his Usurpation of the first Monarchy that God shewed him miraculously a Crown in the Clouds and Constantine likewise alledged or feigned that God shewed him miraculously a Cross in the Clouds yet never any material Crown or Cross dropt from the Clouds neither doth it appear in Scripture or any History that any material Crown was ever by Miracle made by God or sent by any Prophet or Priest who should have Authority to make Tradition thereof and thereby give Investiture of a Kingdom nor Robes for though Gen. 3.21 God made Coats of Skins and clothed Adam and Matth. 6.30 clothed the Lillies yet it is before said Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these Which shews though God made the Lillies he made not Solomon's Robes And the Prophet Ahijah 1 Kings 11.30 though he prophesied the Kingdom to Jeroboam gave him neither Crown nor Robes but rather disrobed him for he caught his new Garment he bad on and rent it in twelve pieces and gave him ten of them And they were the People only that gave him the Investiture by Crown and Robes if those Ceremonies were at all used for it is said Cap. 12.20 The People sent and called him unto the Congregation and made him King over all Israel there was none that followed the House of David but the House of Judah only And Verse 24. It appears that this was from God yet were not the Priests hand in it to Crown him for they would not forsake the Sacrifice at Jerusalem which Verse 27. made Jeroboam to fear that if the people should go thither to sacrifice they would again return to Rehoboam and caused him for prevention to set up the two Golden Calves at Dan and Bethel As to the Coronation of Saul and David we find Saul had a Crown for the Amalekite 2 Sam. 1.10 who tells David he slew him saith I took the Crown that was upon his Head and the Bracelet that was on his Arm and have brought them hither unto my Lord. Coronation of Saul not by the Priest but People 1. It appears not that Samuel gave him this Crown neither is it probable for as hath been said before it appears not in any History that God ever sent a material Crown by any Prophet and as to the Jewish Priests Custom they could have none Saul being the first King in that Kingdom and Law they could have none for the Priest to make Tradition of the Crown to the King for Moses mentions no such thing therefore it was done by the People who were of necessity to shew their assent and acknowledgment by some external Ceremony of acknowledgment of their Governor which after the manner of the Nations after whose example they desired to have a King was by Tradition of a Crown and bringing him Presents which Presents appear 1 Sam. 10.27 to be made by the People and not the Priest for it is there said The Children of Belial said How shall this man save us and they despised him and brought him no Presents Coronation of David on a Conquest by himself As to the Coronation of David it was in a Kingdom he obtained by Conquest made by himself by taking the Crown from the Conquer'd King's Head and setting it on his own head without Prophet or Priest or Contract with the People 2 Sam. 12.26 And Joab fought against Rabbah of the Children of Ammon and took the Royal City And Joab sent Messengers to David and said I have fought against Rabbah and have taken the City of Waters Now therefore gather the rest of the People together and encamp against the City and take it lest I take the City and it be be called after my name And David gather'd all the People together and went to Rabbah and fought against it and took it And he took their Kings Crown from off his Head the weight whereof was a Talent of Gold with the Pretious Stones and it was set on David's Head Thus appears Coronation to be over a Conquer'd People Coronation of David on a Contract by the People but when David hath to do with a free People of Judah and Israel it appears he neither assumed the Crown himself with his own hand nor received Tradition or Investiture of any Prophet or Priest of the same but from the People on Contracts mutually agreed Yea not only the Crown but the Anointing it self which signified the Kingdoms was given by the People or which is all one by their Representative in Parliament and not by the Priest as will appear from the Texts following viz. 1 Sam. 16 13. where it is said concerning David when he was brought before Samuel Then Samuel took the Horn of Oil and anointed him in the midst of his Brethren and the Spirit of the Lord came on David from that day forward 2 Sam. 2.4 The men of Judah came and there they anointed David King over the House of Judah And 2 Sam. 5.1 Then came all the Tribes of Israel to David unto Hebron And Verse 3. So all the Elders of Israel came to the King to Hebron and King David made a League with them in Hebron before the Lord and they anointed David King over Israel And 1 Chron. 1.1 Then all Israel gather'd themselves to David unto Hebron And Verse 3. Therefore came all the Elders of Israel to the King to Hebron and David made a Covenant with them in Hebron before the Lord and they anointed David King over Israel according to the word of the Lord by Samuel By which appears first that the anointing by Samuel of David gave him no Investiture of the Kingdom for Saul was then alive but only he prophesied by this he should be King and Successor after Saul's death and by Miracle prepared and made him capable and fit to execute the Office by giving him from that time the Spirit of God which Miracle likewise followed the anointing of his Predecessor Saul 1 Sam. 10.1 to the 12th Verse But

on the same Some make Nothi and Flii naturales all one as Nov. 99. de Nothis makes Nothus the natural Son and illegitimate as Insulanus Naturalis Filius à vulgo barbarorum dicitur qui sit ex illegitimo toro suscitatus sed parum aptè est enim Filius naturalis qui sanguine natura est tuus non adoptione factus A natural Son is he who is by Blood and Nature thine and not made so by Adoption Cato says there is no such word in Latine as Nothus nor any of the like signification but that which comes nearest it is Spurius and Plutarch says it was a name amongst the Romans as Sextus and Decimus and Caius were and as other names were was written short with two of the first Letters S P. but whether it was a name of honour or dishonour is not known as appears by Hartm Pistor lib. 1. q. juris q. 30. only it is said of them that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fatherless which is less suspicious of dishonour then before for they called their god Vulcan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fatherless and their god Mars was brought out by Juno without a Father as they would have us beleive and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or fatherless did signifie only an Orphan whom misfortune had deprived of his Father And it was therefore true what Cato before said Romans had no such word or thing as Nothus That the Latines had no word amongst them which agreed in signification with Nothus in Greek and having no such word they must have no such thing for if they had had such a thing they would questionless have had a word to express it So as Anti-Christian Christian Rome against the fatherless is worse then Pagan Rome and neither Papal nor Episcopal Religion is pure but unclean for it is declared Jam. 1.27 Pure Religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this to visit the fatherless but it seems they think they have a better Scripture of Coke and Littleton of non habet ipsum patrem to defend them as if it were a sufficient cause to rob a Child of what is dearer then his life his good name and lay Ignominy on him because he is fatherless but let them remember though the fatherless hath no Reverend Father in God to own him he hath a greater even God himself for so he is called Psal 68.5 Father of the fatherless and though he is forsaken as David by his natural Father and Mother yet may he say as he saith Psal 27.10 When my Father and Mother forsake me then the Lord will take me up And as there was no Nothus amongst the Pagan Romans so there was no illegitimation amongst them or the Greeks but all natural Children were legitimate and Probation of Filiation was a Probation of Legitimation Legitimation or Illegitimation of a natural Child impossible for there was no such word or thing as Legitimation or making Children legitimate who were not born so it being impossible to make a Child or a Son of such a man who was not born so or to make any not to be the Child or Son of such a man if he were born so till the Bishops made Marriage a Sacrament and made infatuated People beleive such absurdities as were impossible to be beleived of any but à mente captis as of transubstantiation of two Persons into one Person of transubstantiation of the Children of the Wife into Children of the Husband of making the Child of the man not to be his Child nor of his Blood nor of his Sib or Kin and making the Child born of the Mother not to be her Child nor she of kin to it and the like unheard of Fopperies in former Ages and accordingly Connan lib. 2. cap. 16. num 5. saith That amongst the ancient Lawyers there is no such word to be found as Legitimation and if not of Legitimation there could be none of Illegitimation or Bastardy To translate therefore the word Nothus into a word of so many ambiguous significations as are so many Authors variant and contradictory on the same and into a word which was not nor the thing it is made signifie in Rerum natura at the time of writing Nothus is a false and a foul translation Fourthly A word in Scripture which is modest ought not to be translated into a word of Scurrility but Nothus or a Counterfeit is a word modest it is therefore filthily and falsely translated into inhonestum infame vocabulum which they would derive a Sporo Pudendo Muliebri Fifthly The word Nothus doth not revile the innocent Child with the Crime of the Malefactor but Coke though it be said 1 Cor. 6.10 No Revilers shall inherit the Kingdom of God reviles God's Eldest Daughter Nature to be a Whore and her Children to be Bastards for he saith Aerd signifies Nature and Base signifies Base and a Bastard is a Base-natural or one born of base Nature if therefore he makes the Child a Bastard he must make the Mother a Whore and by making her Children Base he makes none Noble but the Children of the Whore of Babylon of whom she is deliver'd by the Man-Midwifry of a Priest in a Temple There being therefore no such word in the whole Original Scripture Old Testament or New which signifies a Bastard or illegitimate Child nor any such thing amongst the Hebrews or Barbarous Nations themselves as illegitimation of natural Children nor in Rerum Natura amongst the wild Beasts Monsters and Serpents as illigitimation of their Young till that more and monstrous old Serpent and Romish Dragon appear'd described Rev. 12.3 Having Seven Heads and Ten Horns and Seven Crowns upon his Heads And his Tail drew the third part of the Stars of Heaven and did cast them to the Earth and the Dragon stood before the Woman which was ready to be delivered for to devour his Child as soon as it was born And Verse 16. And the Earth helped the Woman and the Earth opened her mouth and swallowed up the Flood which the Dragon cast out of his mouth And the Dragon was wroth with the Woman and went to make War with the remnant of her seed which keep the Commandments of God and have the Testimony of Jesus Christ Now though none here undertake to unfold Mysteries or expound Prophecies yet it will be a more proper Exposition then the Episcopal translation of Mamzer and Nothus and their Expositions on the same If any should say allusively though not prophetically and expound Prelacy to be the Dragon with many Heads and Horns Woman-kind to be the Woman the multitude of Provincial and Ecclesiastical Laws of Marriage to be the Flood of Waters cast out of the Dragons mouth against the Woman the illegitimation of all Children not born of a Marriage made by a Priest in a Temple to be the standing of the Dragon before the Woman ready to be deliver'd for to