Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	edward_n	king_n	year_n	8,591	5	5.7368	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85884	The divine right and original of the civill magistrate from God, (as it is drawn by the Apostle S. Paul in those words, Rom. 13.1. There is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God) illustrated and vindicated in a treatise (chiefly) upon that text. Wherein the procedure of political dominion from God, by his ordination; ... is endevored truly and plainly to be laid open. / Written for the service of that eminent truth, order, justice, and peace which the said text, in its genuine sense, holdeth forth, and supporteth: and for the dissolving of sundry important doubts, and mistakes about it. By Edward Gee minister of the Gospel at Eccleston in the county palatine of Lancaster.	Gee, Edward, 1613-1660.	1658 (1658)	Wing G448; Thomason E1774_1; ESTC R202104	279,674	430

neither is he that is chosen upon the fail of an ancient Royal line or stock truly reducible to any of these three sorts viz. Either a Father of the people or an heir of such a Father or an Vsurper of the right of such a Father 4. Object The last objection I shall hold up being the remainder of what I meet with is But this way of setling Government by the peoples consent cannot be proved ever to have been held or practised All powers that have reigned have entred by the sword or rule by virtue of such entrance Resp This is a very broad allegation and the prejudice therein c●st upon all powers seems to proceed from partiality to s●me But 1. The way of subjects election of their Government to have been practised and that antiently or from the first I have above brought testimonies unto from Authors of the best note to wit Aristotle Cicero Justin Juvenal Ludovicus Vives Polydore Virgil and Mr. Calvin Viz in this Sect. Subsect 4. To these I shall only here add the witness of one of our English Historians giving a threefold instance of the subjects choice of their Soveraign to wit of three Kings One of the antient British another of the Saxon another of the Norman race Mr. Speed Speed Hystory Book 5. Chap. 6. Sect. 2. Book 6. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. Book 8. Chap. 6. Sect. 1. Book 9. Chap. 2. Sect. 54. Chap. 3. Sect. 1 2. tels us that when Julius Caesar first enterprised the conqu●st of this land among the many Reguli or petty Kings that then ruled in the several parts thereof Cassibilan was by a universal vote chosen the Chieftain and supreme That upon the death of Hardicanute the third Danish King Edward the Confessor was by a general consent elected King And that William the Conquerour appointing no heir at his death his son William Rufus was by the consent and voices of the States made King 2. When learned Authors tell us of fundamentall laws and constitutions of nations and when the late Parliament so often mentioned ●nd insisted on the fundamental laws and the antient fundamental constitution frame aad government of this Kingdom in opposition to an arbitrary and Tyrannical government in their publique votes declarations and remonstrances particularly in their preamble to the Protestation taken by them and the whole Kingdom of May the 3. 1641. and in the Declaration of the House of Commons of April 17. 1616. ordered to be published set up and fix●d in every Parish Chu●ch what other thing do they mean thereby but this to wit the o●igi●al establishment of policy and government by the mutual contention CHAP. V. SECT V. Subsect 6. capitulation and agreement of Governours and people Aristotle Aristotelis Polit lib. 3. num 87. lib. 5. num 112. often in his Politicks delivers it as the difference betwixt a King and a Tyrant a Kingdom and a Tyranny that the one is founded upon the will of the Subj●cts the other is against their wils and held over them by force Mr. Gregory of C. C. observes upon those words Act. 11.26 And the Disciples were called Christians first at Antioch that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were called is borrowed from a Roman custom viz. when the Provinces submitted themselves to the imperial Government the use was to cause a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or publique edict to be drawn up and proclaimed upon the place And particularly there was such an one at Antioch when the City yeelded up it self into the subjection of the Roman Empire in the time of Julius Cesar In memory whereof that City fixed their aera or reckoning of time upon the date of that action which they therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the Emperour did then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 publiquely entitle them to all the priviledges immunities c. Here is a famous instance which the said Author brings out of Johannes Antiochenus of the mutual agreement and close betwixt Prince and People at the first entrance into that relation And I would aske further how it could be otherwayes then by mutuall consent that Government was erected in the several Nations at the confusion of languages when the several parties were in an instant rent asunder from that one community they were of and from under that one head which perhaps had been untill then over them and left to themselves to associate each party into a distinct community and under a new Government as they were severally languaged there being no reason or ground to conclude that to each of them there was still appropriate one natural Grandsire and that he was by natural right to be the Soveraign or that in defect thereof there was one eldest house CHAP. V. SECT IV. Subsect 6. and one Parent thereof that was entitled to the regiment of all the other collateral and younger branches of the same stock The which supposals have been above refuted And again how can it be otherwise at the plantation of a new Colonie at the extinction of a Royall race or at the Cession of Kings or States that is when a people are deserted of their former Supreme Governors as the Britains of this Island sometime were by the Roman State to wit then when their prefect Aetius withdrew himself and his legions from this Countrey upon the decay of the Roman greatness and exposed the rule of it unto who so might get it * See Speeds History Book 7. Chap. 1. Sect. 1 2 3. And thus it was some authors tell us at the translation of the Roman Empire to Germany † Widdringtons Theolog. Disput in Admon to his Reader Sect. 4. 3. The Governments that either now are or heretofore have been 1. Many of them are known to have been established by the peoples consent as was even now shewed 2. Of many of them the original first rise or bottom like the head of Nilus is not known Of these because nothing to the contrary appears we have no just reason to think but they stand upon this basis In all matters of tenure immemorial possesion inculpably held leads men to take the beginning to have been right 3. Many are known to have a violent and unjust beginning Of these 1. Some though the entrance of them was such yet they have after come to be setled upon a better foundation Thus it was saith Fr. Junius Junius Animadv in Bellarminum Controv 3. lib. 5. cap. 8. Sect. 18. ca 9. Sect. 20. Mr. Perkins To. 1. Tract of Callings pa. 762. A. in the Empire of Charles the first as also in that of Julius Caesar Ex post facto jus invaluit cujus non ita fuerunt principia justa Accordingly saith Mr. Perkins A Prince enters into a Kingdom by war and bloudshed Now by the bad entrance be is no lawful King Yet if the people do willingly submit themselves to this usurper and be content to yield subjection and the

them man hath a dominion given him of God * Gen. 1 2● Psal 8.5 or more strictly as it respecteth man only and this Power this related we peculiarly call Authority And this again is distinguishable according to the diversity of humane societies some whereof are private and domestical and some are more publique But as it is found in or related to a publique civill community or body politique it's tearmed Magistracy or political power That there is a reall difference to be found betwixt those two powers the Natural and the Moral as in general so as they may be seated in man as the subject and respect man as the object and particularly as they are competible to a body politique and that the difference lies as was said herein that the one consists in a meer impetus or prepotency or a sufficiency of strength to impose or make impression on another the other in a right or imerest to bear sway may be easie to fe● 1. The reality of the difference is evident Natural power is found not only in man but in brute beasts yea in inanimates Moral is proper to reasonable creatures Again although reasonable creatures be enduable with both yet among men the natural and the moral might and right to rule may be and for the most part are distinct or separate each from other in regard of the subject of inherence * Potestas in populo Authoritat in Senatu Cicero de leg lib. 3. The Natural power is ordinarily in them that do not ought nor to rule but to obey and be in subjection There is a Moral power or right to rule in Man over the other Creatures yet in natural power he is inferiour to many of them And amongst men in Natural power that is strength or might of body the family in greater then the Master the Subjects excel● their Soveraign the Souldiert overmatch their Leaders whereas the Moral power in relation to each of these is in the Master the Soveraign the Leader It is very seldom seen if ever in any humane Society that Natural and Moral power do meet in the same persons as the subjects of inhesion Suppose a City or Nation ruled by some strong hand or a military force even in that force there must needs be some one head or councel of a few to guide and command it some Pretorian Magistracy to govern the Army and in that head or Pretorian office far inferior in Natutal power to the Army as the Army possibly is to the City or Nation under its beck would the supreme Power lie and the military force would but be subordinate and ministerial to that command in like manner as the unarmed people are to that force And although it be both right and necessary to the well-being of a political Society that the Natural and Moral power do concur the former to serve and support the other and the discord of these is the high way to the ruine of both yet it is not simply necessary to the being either of the Moral power or of the community Every sudden mutiny or temporary Sedition which is the Insurrection and prevalency of the Natural power against the Moral doth not dissolve the present Society or Magistracy Political or Military The uproar at Ephesus Act. 19. was within a few houres quelled and the City remained in its former state Although upon the death of Ahaziah 2 Chron. 22.9 his house had no power viz. natural to keep still the Kingdom but Athaliah usurped it yet within a few years it removed the usurpresse and repossessed both Power and Kingdom as in its former right 2. And that the difference twixt those two Powers lies as was said in the meer forciblenesse or prevalidity of the one and the right or legitimacy to command of the other that the one can the other only may or ought to rule the one possibly hath the appetite and act of governing the other hath only the commission and warrant should me thinks easily be conceived Natural power we oppose to impotency weakness Moral power we oppose to illicitness or wrong Thence that saying Id tantum possumus quod jure possumus whereby it appears that Natural power consists in strength Moral in rightfulness And indeed wherein else should the difference be placed What difference is there to be made betwixt the power of one Brute prevailing over another or over a Man and that of the owners ruling over that Brute or betwixt that of a Man-stealer that hath gotten anothers childe into his hand by stealth and that of the true father over his childe or betwixt that of a Rout or Band of Rogues or drunken companions that may have assaulted and beaten the Magistrates officers and perhaps himself too and that of the Civil Magistrate each of these may de facto be Master each of them may be found assuming and exercising rule they cannot therefore be distinguished by their acts The d stinction then betwixt them must be taken from the ground rise or principle from which the acts of rule are put forth which in the one and the other are divers In the one those acts are from meer force and will in the other they are from authority or a will authorized to prescribe or command Each of these Powers I say may be found exercising rule for we cannot call any power morall meerly because it acteth in or manageth those we call Moral or Civil affairs for that a Natural power in a subject endued with reason may do there may be an intermedling with Civill matters where there is no moral power as in case of Sedition where they that are to obey will needs rule as on the other hand there may be a Moral power that is a right to command or dispose where the object is not moral or civil such is the power of man given him of God over other creatures animate and inanimate of disposing according to his reason and will of their natural acts of feeding generating labouring c. But that is a moral power in relation to any of these objects or matters about which power is exercised which hath a moral rise or deduction viz. an authorization and right and what hath not so is meerly natural The proper character then or formall difference of each of these two Powers is that the Natural power is no other then a brutish predominancy or violence * Potentia est id quod per si est effican Vit est majoris rei impetus qui repelli vel saltem ex arbitrio commode non potest Greg. Tholos Synt. Juris lib. 11. cap. 2. Sect. 3. cap. 1. Sect. 4. the reason of its superiority is its own might and will it knows nothing of any civil liberty order or right its proper act is ruere impetere or impellere to rush in upon assault or bear down before it what stands in its way if it use reason so far as to give out commands