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
A75429	An ansvver to the cities representation set forth by some ministers of the Gospel, within the province of London. Concerning the proceedings of the army. By a Presbyterian patriot, that hath covenanted to preserve the rights and priviledges of Parliaments, and the Kings Majesties person and authority; in the preservation, and defence of the true religion and liberties of the kingdoms; and not otherwise. February 7. 1648. Imprimatur Gilbert Mabbot.		1649 (1649)	Wing A3399; Thomason E541_23; ESTC R205927	13,928	26

crime to be an honest man as it was heretofore when the King was King and would have been so had he been so againe Next they tell the Army Pag. 10. What threatnings are in Scripture against contemners of Magistrates and judgements denounced on the opposers of this Ordinance of God But they should distinguish betwixt Magistrates and Magistracie the one may be disobeyed and the other not contemned nor opposed the first being the Ordinance of man the other of God and who are meerely men and not Magistrates in those things wherein they prevaricate I question whether they did greater contempt in secluding the Members or they that owne not the remainder out of a sullen humour for the House of Commons which the Army doe with all respect which shewes them not to bee against Magistracie though against corrupted and seduced Magistrates that by falsifying their trust have justly forfeited it But for to strike the greater stroke they afterwards vouch the terrible examples of Corah Dathan and Abiram upon their mutiny against Moses and Aaron comparing the act of these rake-hells who in ambition and envy against Gods faithfull Ministers and Servants meerly for their horour and preferment sake into those offices wherein God himselfe had set them and miraculously confirmed them mutinied against them not for any miscarriages of injustice or impiety in the execution of those their places who no doubt might lawfully have opposed Aaron when at Horeb hee made the golden Calfe this act I say they compare to the Armies secluding the noxious members as will shortly appeare to those without and which hath long been known to them within the walls of the House of Commons and the bringing the King to tryall in order to the Kingdomes settlement It is wonderfull to see so loose and unweighed a passage drop from the pen of so many learned Divines But nothing is strange in this age but an Orthodox Independent and a Presbyterian Patriot Afterwards they protest against pag. 11. these practises of the Army in opposing Magistrates and murthering the King so they call their bringing him to justice as concurrent with Jesuiticall Principles it is strange that Jesuites should bee of the plot against the King and Queen they have deserved better from them and no doubt would have done had they been in power or against the secluded Members the best friends to Bishops next to Cavaliers in armes Iesuits are not wont to be so good English men as to go against the interest of Rome nor to forsake their adherents a Son and Daughter of his holinesse to strike hands with another party But doubtlesse there is great difference betwixt murtherous massacring of Protestant Princes eo nomine and just araignment of Delinquent Kings before the Senate and people Had the Army killed the King in fight would you have abhorred it as a murtherous act under a specious pretence and is it more lawfull to kill him violently then judicially Then in the same page they advise the Army to consult themselves and so do you your selves of the affirmative if some other party whose principles had not been concurrent with theirs should have attempted the seizeing of the Kings person how they would have construed it and so for securing and prohibiting the Members If the party ment by non concurence of principles be Cavalerish Londoners doubtlesse the Army would have thought very ill of it or for any to have done it that had done it to those publicke ends they doe it for fearing whioh therefore they did it knowing what desire there was to set him at liberty to begin the warres againe but if any confiding men would have eased them of this work for publick purposes I dare answer for them it would have been thankfully taken as you saw it was when they so chearfully and humbly seconded the votes of setling peace without him seeing it could not bee done with him For securing and inhibiting Members others have done that as well as they I meane the Citizens when they drive the Speaker c. from the Parliament to the Army who indeed restored him without damnifying the City the worth of one gold chaine Afterwards they compare againe the King and his wicked Instruments subversion of Lawes and dissolving Parliaments with the Armies laudable indeavours of the peacefull settlement of the Kingdome in its liberties and the people in their Rights extorted from them by the King and his Creatures as ecclesiasticall rights had of long time been by Bishops What the meaning is of those words in the 12. Page If through Gods permission for reasons best knowne to himselfe you have had or may have successe in an evill way c. I understand not I hope it neither meanes their Victories against the King or Soots and therefore they inferre Gods Provide nce is no safe Rule to walke by and to confirme it bring the example of Davids sparing Saul when he was in his hands Providence is no Rule to justifie any thing that is against the Rule rightly understood for there may be a misunderstanding of right Rules according to that of Christ in behalfe of his Apostles accused of Sabbath breaking Have yee not heard what David did when he was an hungry to wit lawfully which yet was unlawfull by the Rule So when these Divines quote Davids Example towards Saul they should state the case aright not of David a private person taking up Armes for his owne defence against Saul marke that by the way whom he was not to kill that he might succeed him upon which motive they incited him to doe it but to stay Gods time not to snatch the blessing like Jacob before it was ripe I say they should not put the case of such a David but they should suppose him in Armes by Authority of the Magistracy or people against Saul declared a Violator of his Trust and Israels just Liberties as the King hath been by Parliament to suppresse his exorbitancies and defend them against him this is the David that runnes patallell with our Army and the case thus put the question is what David would have done against Saul towards bringing him to justice it providence had favoured him Who it seemes though a private person would forceably have defended himselfe as by taking Armes appeares if he had beene put to it by Providence for all the promise which notwithstanding he relied upon to the uttermost extremity but in extremity would not have tempted God by a faith without meanes But as I say David was not to come by the Kingdome by King-killing that would have cut God short of abundance of Glory and therefore he saith The Lord forbid that I to wit a private person and Sauls Successor should do this thing unto my Master the Lords Anoynted that I a servant and subject should for mine own ends and ambition take away the life of the King who is anoynted and appoynted by God to Reigne out his time notwithstanding the promise made to