Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	david_n	israel_n	judah_n	1,785	5	9.8153	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A50646	Some remarques upon a late popular piece of nonsence called Julian the apostate, &c. together, with a particular vindication of His Royal Highness the Duke of York, by some bold truths in answer to a great many impudent calumnies raised against him, by the foolish arguments, false reasonings and suppositions, imposed upon the publick from several scandalous and seditious pamphlets especially from one more notorious and generally virulent than the rest, sometime since published under the title of A Tory Plot, &c. / by a lover of truth, vertue, and justice.	Meredith, Edward, 1648-1689?	1682 (1682)	Wing M1784; ESTC R23540	71,436	69

against the publick Safety in that it is against the very Being of the Government Now by the Being of the Government I understand the Ancient Hereditary Monarchy and whatsoever tends to the dissolution of that is against the Being of the Government any Bill or Act therefore for excluding a next Heir tends absolutely to the dissolution of the Ancient Hereditary Monarchy in that it puts it in a meer state of Election for the very Act of Excluding one Heir imports the Election of another As for example when an Act of Parliament is passed for the dis-inheriting the Heir of an Entail'd Estate it is not made an Act for the Excluding such or such an Heir But for cutting off the original Entail And the passing a Law for dis-inheriting the Heir to the Crown cannot be made an Act of Exclusion for Magna Charta sayes no Heir shall be spoil'd of his Inheritance but it must be made an Act of Dissolution and cutting off the Entail of the Crown the very Law by which the Heir holds his Right of Inheritance which would be utterly destructive of the Being of the Government and consequently Publick Safety for should an Act be made to dis-inherit the Heir of an Entail'd Estate without cutting off the original Entail the Act would be void in it self and of no force because against the Fundamental Statute of Magna Charta But the cutting off the Entail removes all manner of Right to Inheritance and leaves the present Possessor at liberty of choosing what and how many Heirs he shall think fitting I hope the Ancient Inheritance of the Imperial Crown of England shall never be so Violated It is also against the Express Word of God in his Scriptures which sayes speaking of the Law of Inheritances thus If a man dye and have Numb Cap. 27. Vers 8. no Son then shall ye cause his Inheritance to pass unto his Daughter And if he have no Daughter then ye shall ye give his Inheritance unto his Brethren And if he have no Brethren then ye shall give his Inheritance unto his Fathers Brethren And if his Father have no Brethren then shall ye give his Inheritance unto his Kinsman that is next to him of his Family and he shall possess it and it shall be unto the Children of Israel a Statute of Judgment Can there be any thing more positive then this Here we have the absolute Command of God for the Lineal Successions of one Heir in default of another down through a whole Generation nay He calls it too a Statute of Judgment an unalterable Statute a Statute upon no conditions to be Violated and surely we are not Wiser or Juster then the Almighty Author of both Wisdom and Justice Moreover in another place of speaking the Rights of the First-Born it is said that When it shall be that a Father maketh his Sons to inherit that Deut. Ch. 21. Vers 16. which he hath that he may not make the Son of the beloved first-born before the Son of the hated which is indeed the first-Born But he shall acknowledg the Son of the hated for the first-born by giving him a double portion of all that he hath for he is the beginning of his strength the right of the first-born is his So that however merry our noble Author be pleased to make himself with the Right of Primogeniture it was a Sacred Law pronounced from the Oracle of God and by no succeeding Ordinance that ever I read or heard of yet repealed But let us Examine in the next place those Arguments he produces against the Right of Primogeniture He has indeed upon this occasion proceeded in a most extraordinary way of Argumentation which is by asking of Questions which to oblige him I will recapitulate here and answer as well as I can by Questions too and leave the Reader to Judge whose are most reasonable As first then sayes he against the Right of Primogeniture Quest In how many Kingdoms has Force and Violence and the longest Sword settled an Absolute Monarchy Answ Must therefore we go together by the Ears to Unsettle this Excellent One Quest How oft has that York been shak't off and the Government turn'd into a Free State Answ Must therefore we Rebel again as we did about 40 Years ago to become Slaves to the Tyranny of our fellow-Subjects and at last the Rod of an Usurper Quest How many different Models of both Monarchies and States are there at this day in the World c. Answ Must therefore we never rest contented with the Best of Governments because there are so many Worse in the World to make choice of And yet sayes he none of these Governments but are or ought to be submitted to for the Lords sake To which I answer That therefore it is a Sin to alter or endeavour in any point to Violate such a Government Now the Alteration of Succession would be a great Violation of the Rights of this present Ancient and Establisht Monarchy consequently against the Constitution of the Government and therefore sinful in that it ought to be submitted to for the Lords sake as our Author has been pleased to remind us But to our Questions again viz. Quest What shall we say of Gods giving the Kingdom of Israel to Saul of the Tribe of Benjamin the Youngest of Jacob 's Sons or to David the Youngest of his Fathers Sons and of the Tribe of Judah while none of Reuben's off-spring ever sate upon the Throne Answ To which I answer Though God had promised Abraham to make of him a great Nation that was not yet accomplished at the death of his Grandson Jacob who was at best but as a private man dyed in Egypt where his Posterity afterwards remain'd in Captivity and under that Bondage multiply'd to a People till they were led out of it by Moses who established them into a Nation and was their Law-giver besides when Jacob dyed and blessed his Sons He upbraided Reuben of the Sin he had committed and told him Vnstable as water thou shalt not excell because thou wentest up to thy Fathers bed then defiledst thou it Besides as I said Genesis Ch. 49. 1. 4. before Israel were not then a Nation till God brought 'em by the hand of Moses out of Egypt but when the Miracles were begun for the redeeming of the chosen People from Bondage then the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron in the Land of Egypt and the Passeover was instituted then they began to be a Nation of Men and Modell'd into Government Marched and Encamped under the Command of Moses till they were led through the Red Sea into the Wilderness then they fought with Amalek and vanquished After which Moses hearkning to the advice of Jethro his Father-in-Law Chose able Men out of Israel who Judged the People at all seasons the hard Causes they brought unto Moses but every small matter they Judged themselves so that Moses was their Supream Judge and Law-giver till he

Led them out of the Plains of Moab to the Top of Pisgah where the Lord shewed him all the Land of Gilead unto Dan and all Nepthali and the Land of Ephraim c. And said unto him This is the Land which I sware unto Abraham unto Isaac and unto Jacob saying I will give it unto thy seed but Moses was not suffered to go over thither but dyed in the Land of Moab Moses thus dead Joshua by the appointment of God succeeded him as Judge over Israel After Joshua's death we read that they forsook the Lord and served Baal and that the Anger of God was hot against Israel nevertheless the Lord raised up Judges and was with the Judge and delivered them out of the hands of their Enemies but when the Judge was dead they returned to Corruption again till the Lord left them to be proved by the 5. Lords of the Philistims and all the Canaanites c. among whom they dwelt and who were to prove Israel to know whether they would hearken to the Commandments of the Lord but they did Evil and were sold into the hand of the King of Mesopotamia whom they served Eight Years but upon their Cry to God he raised up a Deliverer one Othneil who governed them 40 years to him succeeded Ehud after him was Shamgar till renewing their sins they again were sold to Jabin King of Canaan delivered afterwards and restored by Deborah under whom they had rest 40 years After her God raised up Gideon or Jerubbaal who delivered them from the Midianites after him his Son Abimelech was made by them King Abimelech being dead there rose up to defend Israel Jola after him Jair and in this manner were they governed by Judges till the time of Samuel And he in his age made his Sons Judges over Israel who walked not in his wayes but turned aside after lucre took Bribes and perverted Judgment upon which the Elders gathered together and demanded a King of Samuel to govern them like other Nations This King was Saul Chosen by God himself there was the absolute Command of God for the Anointing him King over Israel Neither was there any Succession cut off for Reuben had no right ever of it and the original of Kingly Power in Israel by Gods appointment began in Saul So that Kingly Power as much a jest as they make of the matter appears plainly by this to be originally Jure Divino Were Power grounded in the People Abimelech's race who before was chosen King by the People must have succeeded but it did not and the first Successive Monarchy that ever was Established in Israel was Jure Divino by God's own Law and confirmed by Promise to David but our Author desires to know How came David afterwards to Reign How came the Crown translated from Benjamin to Judah Why was it not continued in the Tribe Would our Author give himself to read the Scripture sometimes he would write honester Pamphlets and ask more pertinent Questions for the Kingdom was never Established upon Saul for having transgressed the Commandment of God by a prophane Sacrifice Samuel told him he had done foolishly for he had not kept the Commandment of God for God would have established his Kingdom else upon Israel for ever but that now he had sought a man after his own heart which was David So by this it appears that though Saul himself was King the Kingdom was never confirmed or promised to his Seed And therefore the translating of it to David of the Tribe of Judah is no Argument for the cutting off a Succession established for so many Ages as this Ancient Monarchy of England has been But here 's arisen another Question Quest How came David to put Adonijah by the Throne and seat Solomon in it Asnw Why did Adonijah Rebel and usurp the Kingdom from his Father while he was yet alive Did the Duke of York ever Rebel nay did he ever murmur against the King his Brother Have not the King's Commands been always Sacred to him what Dangers has he refus'd what Exile not chosen when the King gave his Decree for it though had it been in his Nature he might like a rebellious Absolom have stood upon terms of Privilege too but while one chose rather to be a stiff-neck't Duke than a beloved Son He chose rather to be a dutiful Brother than a stubborn Subject Neither was the Right of Succession to the Throne of David by any Law settled upon the Elder and besides the Rebellious Usurpation of Adonijah David had before sworn that Solomon should Reign after him and sit upon the Throne in his stead so that in the first place here was no Entail of Succession violated though Rebellion if any thing might have warranted it But in our Law ev'n in case the Heir to the Crown should Rebel though he should be attainted of Treason to incapacitate him of Succession this would not do if his Head stood upon his Shoulders neither for the Descent of the Crown upon that cures even an Attainder But a Bill of Exclusion is a new-sangled thing that never was heard of before inconsistent in it self tending both in Law and Reason to nothing else but embroyling us into general Confusion and utterly exterminating the very foundation of the Monarchy Thus far I hope we have sufficiently overthrown the legality of a Bill of Exclusion insomuch that no such thing can be pass'd in Law without taking the whole frame of the Government to pieces and setting up a new one But the Arguments our Author urges which such a Bill is not against the Oath of Allegiance and the Consequences he deduces from them are indeed very considerable First He tells 't is Nonsence to affirm that any one is a Man's Heir or Successor while himself lives Then I say the Oath of Allegiance is against common sence and by Sir F. W's Argument in the House against Expedients Void therefore in it self and of no force for if an Act of Parliament against common sence be in it self Void certainly any Oath against common sence instituted by Act of Parliament is so too But why is it Nonsence to affirm That any one is a Man's Heir or Successor while himself lives Because says he the Successor Commences such only at his Predecessor's Death which by the way seems to me much the more Nonsence of the two for every Successor to the Crown at the instant of his Predecessor's Death De Jure becomes no longer Successor but very Possessor though not confirm'd so De facto till his Coronation so that to do the Oath of Allegiance Justice it is no Nonsensical Oath for all our Author 's Nonsensical Argument but an Oath that obliges every true Subject to Adhere to the King and his Lawful Successors and whosoever go about by any unlawful Act as we have prov'd one of Exclusion must be to deprive the Duke of York of his Right to Succession does it against the Oath of Allegiance and