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
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

us our sins as we forgive them that sin against us For there is no reason from the nature of sin and the nature of Gods Law why we can say more the subjects and sons sin against the King and Father then to say the Father and King sin against the sonnes and subjects 3. The King killing his Father Jesse should sin only against God but not break the fift commandment nor sin against his Father 2. As all Emperors Kings and Princes are subject to the Lawes of God of nature and Nations so are they bound in conscience to give satisfaction and recompence to their subjects against whom they sin in this nature and David himself determines so much in his own cause And Davids anger was greatly kindled against the man the man was himself 1 Sam. 12.7 thou art the man and he said to Nathan as the Lord liveth the man that hath don this shall surely die 3. For the reason of Davids speech in saying against thee thee only have I sinned Expositors are diversly minded some say he meaneth none durst judge or punish him but God onely Lorinus the Jesuit observeth eleven interpretations of Ancient writers all to this sence It is true Beda Euthymius Ambrose Chrysostome Basil Theodoret do acknowledge from the place de facto there was none above David to judge him so Augustine Basil Gregory Arnobius Dydimus Hieronim But the simple meaning is Against thee only 1. As my eye witnesse and immediate beholder for he conceal'd his sin from men but could not from God 2 Sam. 12.12 2. Because as the cause stood God only could remit the punishment of his sin 3. By only he means comparatively as if he should say principally and especially against thee Isa 43 5 Psal 41.3 and the word a 1 King 15.7 Josh 1.7.18 1 Sam. 18.17 only is often so taken 4. The Sanedrim did not punish David Ergo it was not lawful for them nor is it lawfull for a State to punish a King for any act of injustice is logick which we may resist 5. Had the adultery and murder been publickly known and complained of to the Great Councel of the Kingdom I do affirm and will stand to it that they might judicially have proceeded against him for it And because some wil be ready to brand this under the scornful terme of a new light or think I am singular herein I shall here set down the judgment of a judicious and learned professor of Divinity Mr. Sam. Rutherfurd a Scotchman Preem of Elect of King qu 26 p 241 The Prelate saith he draweth me to speak of the case of the Kings unjust murder confessed Psal 51. To which I answer He taketh it for confessed that it had been treason in the Sanedrin and States of Israel to have taken on them to judge and punish David for his adultery and murder but he giveth no reason for this nor any word of God and truly though I will not presume to go before others in this Gods law Gen. 9.6 compared with Numb 35.30,31 seemeth to say against them Nor can I think that Gods law Deut 1,17 2 Chr. 19 6,7 or his deputy the Judges are to accept the persons of the great because they are great and we say we cannot distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not The Lord speaks to under-Judges Levit. 19.15 Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor nor the honor of the person of the mighty or of the PRINCE for we know what these names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaneth I grant it is not Gods meaning that the King should draw the sword against himself but yet it follows not that if we speak of the demerit of blood that the Law of God accepteth any Judge great or small and if the STATE BE ABOVE THE KING as I conceive they are though it be a humane politick constitution that the King is free from all coaction of law because it conduceth for the peace of the Common-wealth yet if we make a matter of conscience FOR MY PART I SEE NO EXCEPTION THAT GOD MAKES OF IT if men make I crave leave to say A facto ad jus non sequitur Thus that Reverend Author Lastly This sin against Vrijah was personal and a private injury into which David fell by occasion and out of humane frailty it was the first and only sin that he committed in this kind that ever we reade of he made no trade of it he repented for it and never relapsed after into it Whereas Charles Steuart in a hostile and publick way hath murdered many thousands of his best subjects by giving Warrants and Commissions under his own hand to Atheists and Papists personally appeared in many battles to destroy the people caused sundry villages towns and cities to be ruinated by fire plunder rapine authorised villanous Pirates of other nations not to mention his own Son nor Rupert that monster of mankind to rob and kill his own subjects at sea gave Ormond commission and the bloody Irish to kill and massacre not so few as two hundred thousand men women and children of the Protestant religion in Ireland not to speak of fifteen hundred widowes which he made in one morning as Mr. Henderson told him nor the losse of Rochel in France by his lending ships to the French King and this was his trade and constant practice many yeers together and doubtlesse would have continued so to this day had not the Lord of Hosts by a powerfull hand using our Army as instrumental means supprest him and for all this his heart never smote him as it could be perceived but remain'd impenitent and incorrigeble in his sins 9. obiect It is likewise objected Jer. 29,7 That the children of Israel were commanded by God himself to pour out supplications prayers for the peace and prosperous estate of Nebuchadnezer a most cruel tyrant and that it was not lawfull for the Jewes to withdraw themselves from the subjection which they did owe unto his Empire Neither would the Lord authorize the people to deliver themselves from under Pharaoh but made Moses a Prince to bring them out of Egypt with a stretched out arm Nor did the Lord deliver his People by the wisdom of Moses or strength of the People or any act that way of theirs but by his own immediate hand and Power Hence conclude that subjects may not punish their Kings for any misdemeanour Answ 1. The Jews were not only subjects and of a private condition but likewise most of them servants and bond-men under the power and Empire of the Caldeans and therefore for private men to rise up against the Magistrates or to resist them with force of arms had been unlawfull 2. And let it be observed that the Jews came by the immediate appointment of the Lord under the power of the Caldeans of which thing they were often preadmonished and fore-told by the Prophets so that it was not only