Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	david_n	king_n	son_n	5,341	5	5.7345	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45694	Political aphorisms: or, The true maxims of government displayed Wherein is likewise proved, that paternal authority is no absolute authority, and that Adam had no such authority. That there neither is or can be any absolute government de jure, and that all such pretended government is void. That the children of Israel did often resist their evil princes without any appointment or foretelling thereof by God in scripture. That the primitive Christians did often resist their tyrannical emperors, and that Bishop Athanasius did approve of resistance. That the Protestants in all ages did resist their evil and destructive princes. Together with a historical account of the depriving of kings for their evil government, in Israel, France, Spain, Portugal, Scotland, and in England before and since the conquest.	Locke, John, 1632-1704. Two treatises of government.; Languet, Hubert, 1518-1581. Vindiciæ contra tyrannos.; Defoe, Daniel, 1661?-1731, attributed name.; Ferguson, Robert, d. 1714, attributed name.; Harrison, T. (Thomas), fl. 1683-1711.	1691 (1691)	Wing H917E; ESTC R216382	24,457	34

were put in the place of the aforementioned deprived by the Common-Wealth And this is and hath been the Custom and Practice of all Kingdoms and Common-Wealths to deprive their Princes for their Evil Government and that God hath and does concur with the same is plain from the Examples before-mentioned of the Prosperity and Happiness that hath attended those Acts. The Barons Prelates and Commons took a solemn Oath That if King John should refuse to grant and confirm their Laws and Liberties they would wage War against him so long and withdraw themselves from their Allegiance to him until he should confirm to them by a Charter ratified with his Seal all things which they required and that if the King should afterwards peradventure recede from his Oath as they verily believed he would by reason of his double-dealing they would forthwith by seizing on his Castles compel him to give Satisfaction He afterwards breaking his Oath and Promise the Barons said What shall we do with this wicked King if we let him thus alone he will destroy us and our People it is expedient therefore that he should be expelled the Throne we will not have him any longer to reign over us and accordingly they sent for Lewis the Prince of France to be their King and swore Fealty to him but they afterwards discovering that he had sworn that he would oppress them and extirpate all their Kindred they rejected him and set up Henry the Third The Bishops of Hereford Lincoln and several Earls Barons and Knights for each County being deputed to go to Edward II and demand a Surrender of the Crown said to him That unless he did of himself renounce his Crown and Scepter the People would neither endure him or any of his Children as their Soveraign but disclaiming all Homage and Fealty would elect some other for King who should not be of the Blood upon which the King resigned his Crown c. By the common Usage of England which is the common Law of England Kings may be deprived for evil Government and others set up in their stead is plain from the afore-going Examples Richard the First being taken Prisoner by the Emperor in his Return from the Holy Land it was decreed that the fourth part of all that Year's Rents and of all the Moveables as well of the Clergy as of the Laity and all the Woolls of the Abbots of the Order of Cistersians and of Semphringham and all the Gold and Silver Chalices and Treasure of all Churches should be paid in towards the Ransom of the King which was done accordingly If all this was given for the Liberty of one Man certainly much more ought to be given now when all our Liberties and Properties and even our Religion too lies at stake if Necessity required it which God forbid By the Law of Nature Salus Populi the Welfare of the People is both the supream and first Law in Government and the scope and end of all other Laws and of Government it self because the Safety of the Body Politick is ever to be preferred before any one Person whatsoever No Human Law is binding which is contrary to the Scripture or the general Laws of Nature Religion doth not overthrow Nature whose chiefest Principle is to preserve her self and God doth not countenance Sin in the greatest but rewards the Punisher witness Jehu c. The end for which Men enter into Society is not barely to live but to live happily answerable to the Excellency of their Kind which Happiness is not to be had out of Society All Common-wealths are in a State of Nature one with another As Magistrates were designed for a general Good so the Obligation to them must be understood so as to be still in Subordination to the main End for the reason of all Law and Government is the Publick Good Government being for the benefit of the Governed and not for the sole advantage of the Governours but only for theirs with the rest as they make a part of that Politick Body each of whose Parts and Members are taken care of and directed in their peculiar Function for the good of the whole by the Laws of the Society The end of Government being the Preservation of all as much as may be even the Guilty are to be spared where it can prove no prejudice to the Innocent The publick Power of all Society is above every Soul contained in the same Society and the Principal use of that Power is to give Laws unto all that are under it which Laws in such cases we must obey unless there be reason shewed which may necessarily inforce that the Law of Reason or of God doth injoyn the contrary Hooker Eccl. Pol. l. 1. § 10. T. Cicero saith there is one Nature of all Men that even Nature it self prescribes this that a Man ought to take care of a Man who ever he be even for this very cause that he is a Man If otherwise all human Consociation must necessarily be dissolved therefore as there are two Foundations of Justice First that no hurt be done to any next that the Profit of all if it can be done be advanced That all Magistates and Governours do proceed from the People is plain from the following Examples in Scripture Deut. 16.18 19. the Children of Israel are commanded to make Judges and Officers throughout their Tribes Deut. 17.14 15. When thou art come into the Land c. and shalt say I will set a King over we like as all the Nations that are about me Thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose One from among thy Brethren shalt thou set over thee thou mayst not set a Stranger over thee So God did only reserve to himself the Nomination of their King by which he designed to make his People more happy than they could expect by their own peculiar Choice he knowing the Heart of Man and Corruption of his Nature would be sure to nominate such who was most fit to govern his People God did not require the Jews to accept of him for King whom he should chuse but left it to their own free Will whether they would accept him or no is plain from the following Examples Upon the Death of Saul David was set up by the Appointment of Almighty God yet there was only the Tribe of Judah that followed David and made him King eleven Tribes following Ishbosheth Saul's Son whom they made King and though David had a long War against the House of Saul yet he calls them not Rebels neither do we find that God punished them or sent any Judgment upon them for not accepting of David as King and when Rechab and Banah had slain Ishbosheth and brought his Head to David at Hebron saying Behold the Head of thine Enemy yet David instead of rewarding them caused them to be slain for killing of Ishbosheth whom he calls a righteous Person not a Rebel After whose

Death all those Tribes came to David and made a Compact with him for the performance of such Conditions which they thought necessary for the securing of their Liberty before they made him King 2 Sam. Chap. 2 3 4 5. The making of Solomon King by David his Father was not thought sufficient without the Peoples Consent else why did the People anoint Solomon and make him King the second time We read Judg. 8.21 22 23. that after Gideon had slain Zebah and Zalmunna with the Midianites the Children of Israel said unto Gideon Rule thou over us both thou and thy Sons and thy Sons Son also for thou hast delivered us from the Hand of Midian But he refusing their Offer they afterwards made his Bastard-Son Abimelech King though he had threescore and ten lawfully-begotten Sons Zimri having slain Baasha King of Israel reigned in his stead but the Children of Israel hearing thereof rejected him and made Omri the Captain of the Host King of Israel 1 Kings 16.15 16. The Kingdom of Edom appointed a Deputy to rule over them instead of a King and gave him Royal Authority there being then no King in Edom 1 Kings 22.47 See Macchab. 9.28 29 30. 13.8 9. 14.41 to 49. By which it is further apparent that their Kings and Governours were chosen by the People As propinquity of Blood is a great Preheminence towards the attaining of any Crown yet it doth not bind the Common-wealth to yield thereto and to admit at hap-hazard every one that is next by Succession of Blood as was falsly affirmed by R. L'estrange and many others when the Parliament would have disinherited the Duke of York as unfit to govern this Nation he being a Papist if weighty Reasons require the contrary because she is bound to consider well and maturely the Person that is to enter whether he be like to perform his Duty and Charge to be committed to him For to admit him that is an Enemy or unfit to govern is to consent to the destroying of the Common-wealth See how God dealt in this point with the Children of Israel 1 Sam. 8. after he had granted to them the same Government as the other Nations round about them had whose Kings did ordinarily reign by Succession as ours do at this day and as most of the Kings of the Jews did afterwards yet that this Law of succeeding by Proximity of Birth though for the most part it should prevail yet He shewed plainly that upon just Causes it might be altered as in the case of Saul who left behind him many Children yet not any of them succeeded him except Ishbosheth who was not his eldest Son who was anointed King by Abner the general Captain of that Nation to whom eleven Tribes followed until he was slain and then they chose David And Jonathan Saul's other Son so much praised in holy Scripture being slain in War his Son Mephibosheth did not succeed in the Crown though by Succession he had much greater Right to it than David God promised David that his Seed should reign for ever after him Yet we do not find this performed to any of his elder Sons nor to any of their Offspring but only to Solomon his younger and tenth Son Rehoboam the lawful Son and Heir of King Solomon coming to Shichem where all the People of Israel were assembled together for his Coronation and admission to the Crown for until that time he was not accounted true King who refusing to ease them of some heavy Impositions which they had received from his Father ten Tribes of the twelve refuse to admit him their King and chose Jeroboam his Servant and made him their lawful King and God allowed thereof for when Rehoboam had prepared an hundred and fourscore thousand chosen Men who were Warriours to reduce those ten Tribes to the Obedience of their Natural Prince God commanded them to desist by his Prophet Shemaiah and so they did These and the like Determinations of the People about admitting or refusing of Princes to reign or not to reign over them when their Designments are to good Ends and for just Causes are allowed by God and oftentimes are his own special Drifts and Dispositions though they seem to come from Man He who is set up or made King by the Consent of the People hath a just Title against the next Heir of the Blood and his Issue who are put by the Crown else most of the Princes now reigning in Europe would be Usurpers and want good Titles to their Crowns they or their Ancestors being set up by the People which were not the right Heirs of the Royal Stock The Laws of the Commonwealth is the very Soul of a Politick Body Kings and Emperors always have been are and ought to be subject to the Laws of their Kingdoms not above them to violate break or alter them at their pleasures they being obliged by their Coronation-Oaths in all Ages and Kingdoms inviolably to observe them for St. Paul saith A Prince is the Minister of God for the Peoples Good and Tribute and Custom are paid to him that he may continually attend thereto The Defence and Procuration of the Common-wealth is to be managed to the benefit of those who are committed not of those to whom it is committed A just Governour for the benefit of the People is more careful of the Publick Good and Welfare than of his own private Advantage Allegiance is nothing but Obedience according to Law which when the Prince violates he has no Right to Obedience There is a mutual Obligation between the King and People which whether it be only Civil or Natural tacit or in express Words can be taken away by no Agreements violated by no Law rescinded by no Force A Kingdom is nothing else but the mutual Stipulation between the People and their Kings The supream Authority of a Nation belongs to those who have the Legislative Authority reserved to them but not to those who have only the Executive which is plainly a Trust when it is separated from the Legislative Power and all Trusts by their Nature import That those to whom they are given are accountable though no such Condition is specified If the Subject may in no case resist then there can be no Law but the Will and Pleasure of the Prince for whoever must be opposed in nothing may do every thing then all our Laws signify no more than so many Cyphers And what are the Law-makers but so many Fools or Mad-men who give themselves trouble to no purpose For if the King is not obliged to govern by those Laws that they make to what purpose are the People to obey such Laws Whether another has Right to my Goods or if he demand them I have no Right to keep them is all one If the King sue me by pretence of Law and endeavour to take away my Money my House or my Land I may defend them by the Law but if he comes armed to take away

fall to ruin in a short space But the Laws are better and greater than Kings who are bound to obey them Then is it not better to obey the Laws rather than the King Who can obey the King violating the Law Who will or can refuse to give Aid to the Law when infringed It is impossible any Body in a Society should have a right to do the Community harm All Kings and Princes are and ought to be bound by the Laws and are not exempted from them and this Doctrine ought to be inculcated into the Minds of Princes from their Infancy Let the Prince be either from God or from Men yet to think that the World was created by God and in it Men that they should serve only for the benefit and use of Princes is an Absurdity as gross as can be spoken since God hath made us free and equal But Princes were ordained only for the Peoples benefit that so they might innocently preserve Human and Civil Society with greater Facility helping one the other with mutual Benefits In all Disputes between Power and Liberty Power must always be proved but Liberty proves it self the one being founded upon positive Law the other upon the Law of Nature With what Ignorance do some assert that Adam was an Absolute Monarch and that Paternal Authority is an Absolute Authority for that the Father of a Family governs by no other Law than by his own Will and the Father is not to be resisted by his Child and that Adam had a Monarchical Absolute Supream Paternal Power and that all Kingly Authority is a Fatherly Authority and therefore irresistable and that no Laws can bind the King or annul this Authority How could Adam be an Absolute Monarch when God gave him the Herbs but in common with the Beasts Gen. 1.29 30. Can it be thought that God gave him an Absolute Authority of Life and Death over Man who had not Authority to kill any Beast to satisfy his Hunger certainly he had no Absolute Dominion over even the Brutal part of the Creatures much less over Man who could not make that use of them as was permitted to Noah and his Sons Gen. 9.3 where God says Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you even as the green Herbs have I given you all things Is it not as reasonable to believe that God would have cursed Adam if he had killed his Son Abel as Cain for killing him Cain was very sensible every one had by the Law of Nature a right to kill him for being guilty of Blood when he said every one that found him should slay him Gen. 4.14 God made no exemption to the greatest Man living who should be guilty of innocent Blood when he said He that sheddeth Mans Blood by Man shall his Blood be shed Gen. 9.6 neither Noab or his Sons were exempted from this great Law and therefore could have no absolute Authority since God has no where given any Man such Authority there can be no such Authority for the Community cannot make themselves Slaves by investing such an Authority in any Man should they do it it is not binding it being against the Law of Nature If Noah was Heir to Adam I ask which of Noah's Sons was Heir to him for if by Right it descended to all his Sons then it must have descended to all their Sons and so on if so then are all Men become equal and independent as being the Off-spring of Adam and Noah If it descended only to the eldest and so on then there can be but one lawful Monarch in the World and who that is is impossible to be found out so that Paternal Monarchical Authority take it which way you will it comes to just nothing at all Where human Institution gives it not the First-born has no right at all above his Brethren No Man has an absolute Authority over the Creatures much less over Mankind because they were given for the use of all Men as occasion should serve should any Man or Men destroy them for their Will and Pleasure beyond what is necessary for the use of Man or for his Preservation it would be a Sin and therefore could be no Authority for God authorizes no Man to commit a Sin tho he often permits it The Law of God and Nature gives the Father no absolute Dominion over the Life Liberty or Estate of his Child and therefore he can have no absolute Authority and where there is no absolute Authority there can be no absolute Subjection due There is an eternal Obligation on Parents to nourish preserve and bring up their Off-spring and under these Circumstances Obedience is due and not otherwise What is a Father to a Child more than another Person when he endeavours to destroy him Nay is he not so much the more odious as the Act is more barbarous for a Father to endeavour to destroy his own Off-spring than for another Person endeavouring it certainly in such a case no Passive Obedience can be due it tending to his Destruction not for his Good which is no Fatherly Act and therefore not to be submitted to He that lets any Person whatsoever destroy him when it is in his power to preserve his Life by defending himself does tacitly consent to his own Death and therefore is guilty of his own Blood as well as he that destroys him Whereas by defending himself there can be but one guilty of Blood which is the Invader in which Defence if he kills the other his Blood lies at his own door By which it follows that Passive Obedience to unjust Violence is a Sin but resisting such Violence is no Sin but the Duty of every Man The first Duty that I owe is to God the second to my self in preserving my self c. the third to my Parent and Soveraign in obeying them in all things reasonable and lawful By all the Precepts in Scripture which require Obedience to Parents Homage and Obedience is as due to the one as to the other for 't is nowhere said Children obey your Father and no more the Mother is mentioned before the Father in Lev. 19.3 Ye shall fear every Man his Mother and his Father Sure Solomon was not ignorant what belonged to him as a King or a Father when he said My Son hear the Instructions of thy Father and forsake not the Law of thy Mother And our Saviour says Matth. 15.4 Honour thy Father and Mother And Ephes 6.1 Children obey your Parents c. If Paternal Authority be an absolute Authority I ask Whether it be in the eldest of the Family if so Whether a Grandfather can dispense with his Grand-Child's paying the Honour due to his Parents by the fifth Commandment 'T is evident in common Sense the Grandfather cannot discharge the Grand-Child from the Obedience due to his Parents neither can a Father dispense with his Child's Obedience due to the Laws of the Land therefore the Obedience required to Parents in Scripture