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	king_n	tribe_n	2,061	5	9.5458	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A59904	A vindication of The case of allegiance due to soveraign powers, in reply to An answer to a late pamphlet, intituled, Obedience and submission to the present government, demonstrated from Bishop Overal's convocation-book, with a postscript in answer to Dr. Sherlock's Case of allegiance, &c. by William Sherlock.	Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707.	1691 (1691)	Wing S3375; ESTC R11110	75,308	83

when the Government is setled by such submission then submission which necessity justified before becomes a Duty and those who would not submit at first or might have refused to do so without sin when the Government is setled by a general submission are then bound in Conscience to submit themselves The Question then between us is or ought to be this if he intends to oppose me Not whether the Iews might lawfully submit to Athaliah while she was possessed of the Throne for this I grant they might lawfully do but whether they having sosubmitted and she being thoroughly setled in her Throne for that our Author will suppose it were not as unlawful upon my Principles for the Iews to set up Ioash and to kill Athaliah as it is for any other People to Depose and Murther a King de facto whose Government is throughly setled among them And here he takes notice of two Arguments I make use of the Argument from Providence and from the necessity of Government for the preservation of human Societies which he says will equally serve Athaliah as any other King or Queen de facto and if they will I will give them up for lost 1. As for Providence the sum of all he says is this That according to my Principles Athaliah was placed in the Throne by God by his Counsel Decree and Order and peculiar Order Well! I must own it for I know none but God who can advance to the Throne and I know no more hurt in owning that God exalted Athaliah to the Throne than that he exalted Baasha who slew Nadab the Son of Ieroboam and Reigned in his stead and yet God himself by his Prophet tells Baasha I exalted thee out of the dust and made thee Prince over my people Israel 1 Kings 16. 2. And what does he prove from this Now Athaliah says he had the actual administration of Soveraign Power and therefore according to the Doctor she was Queen by God's Authority tho' not by the Law of the Land and Allegiance must be due to her as well as to any other And all the Doctor 's Arguments are as conclusive and valid for submission to Athaliah as for submission to any body else Grant all this and what then Why then this justifies the submission of the Iews to Athaliah while she was possessed of the Throne and no rightful Heir appeared And what hurt is there in this Will our Author condemn them for this submission or does the Scripture or Convocation do it If he would have concluded any thing to the purpose he should have said And therefore it was unlawful for Jehoiada to have anointed Joash and to have killed Athaliah But this he knew did not follow from my Principles for I expresly distinguish between God's making Kings by a particular nomination as he made Kings in Jewry and entailed the Kingdom of Judah on David ' s Posterity and his making Kings by his Providence as he does in other Nations Now what I say about the Rights and Prerogatives of Kings advanced to the Throne and setled there by the Divine Providence concerns only such Kingdoms where God makes Kings only by his Providence not such Kingdoms where God ordinarily makes Kings by a particular nomination of the Person or by a Divine entail which is equivalent to a particular nomination For this greatly alters the Case To make this plain let us consider the state of the Kingdom of Iudah and of the Kingdom of Israel after the Ten Tribes were divided from the House of David God first made Kings by an express nomination of the Persons as he did Soul and David and afterwards entailed the Kingdom on David's Posterity when the Ten Tribes were divided from Iudah he still reserved to himself the Prerogative of nominating their Kings when he pleased but yet he did not so strictly confine himself to nominate whom he would have to be King or to an entail of his own making but that he sometimes set up Kings by his Providence without a particular nomination or any successive right as he did in other Nations let us then consider what the right of these providential Kings was in Iudah and Israel Now these Kings when they were setled in their Thrones had all the rights of other Soveraign Princes of Iudah or Israel excepting this that they were liable to be divested of their Kingdom by God's nomination of a new King or by the revival of an old Entail When God nominated any King and gave command to his Prophets to anoint him it was always for life and tho' during his Life he might nominate another to succeed him after his death as he did David to succeed Saul yet he never nominated another to take his Life and his Crown from him and when he had made a perpetual Entail tho' he might for a time interrupt the Succession he did not cut it off but it was otherwise with meer providential Kings as it must necessarily be in such Kingdoms which were under the immediate disposal and nomination of God A new nomination or the appearing of the right Heir put an end to their Reign As for example Ieroboam was placed on the Throne of Israel by God's nomination and Reigned as long as he lived but for his sins God would not entail the Kingdom on his Family but Baasha slew his Son Nadab and succeeded in the Kingdom and was the first providential King of Israel without a Divine nomination or entail Elah Baasha's Son was slain by Zimri and the Children of Israel without any Divine appointment made Omri King Ahab his Son succeeded Omri and Ioram Ahab who were all advanced by the Divine Providence without God's nomination but now their sins being very provoking God commands his Prophet to anoint Iehu King over Israel to destroy the Family of Ahab and Iehu as soon as he was anointed immediately takes possession of the Kingdom kills Ioram and destroys the House of Ahab For tho' Ioram was advanced by the Providence of God and was the third successive King of his Family and therefore had a good right against all human claims yet he could have no unalterable right in the Kingdom of Israel because that Kingdom was at God's immediate disposal when ever he pleased to nominate a King And this is the Reason of the different behaviour of David and Iehu David was anointed as well as Iehu but he never pretended to the Crown while Saul lived because there was then an anointed King on the Throne But this was not Ioram's case He had no more than a Providential Right which in the Kingdom of Israel must give place to God's anointing and therefore Iehu was King of Israel as soon as he was anointed and Ioram was his Subject And this was Athaliah's case She took possession of the Throne by very wicked means but must be allowed to be placed there by the Providence of God and if she had as thorow a settlement as other

of that Tyrant Antiochus being not then either generally received by Submission nor setled by Continuance though I cannot blame him for this because the Author whom he answers took no notice of it but I must blame him for affirming that the Convocation say That when Athaliah was fully possessed of the Throne she ought not to be obeyed but to be resisted and slain for they say no such thing and though he may imagine this to be the Consequence of what they say he ought not therefore to affirm that they said it because he may mistake in his Consequence and that he has done so shall presently appear The Convocation says not one word of the thorough Settlement of Athaliah in the Throne but if we may learn the Sence of the Convocation as this Author concludes we may from what Bishop Buckridge a Member of that Convocation has written in his Defence of Barclay they did not think her settled in the Throne for when Bellarmin had objected the quiet Possession of Athaliah for six Years the Bishop as this Author cites him answers How quiet soever it was it was violent for she was guarded with Souldiers and affirms that Athaliah had not acquired a Right to the Crown I suppose he means only such a Right as a thorough Settlement gives neither by the Consent of the People nor by the Prescription of six Years Six Years were not long enough for a Prescription which he says must be a hundred Years and the Consent of the People it seems she had not and therefore being a meer Usurper and no Queen she might be Deposed And thus his whole Argument is lost And here I must observe that the Bishop allows as the Convocation does that either the Consent of the People or a long Prescription gives a Right that is such a Right as makes Obedience due to Princes thus settled without a legal Title and therefore our Author greatly prevaricates when he pretends to give the Bishop's sence of a thorough Settlement that is when a Right to the Government is acquired by a Prescription and that is a long and uninterrupted Possession joyned with the Consent of the People The Bishop distinguishes between the Consent of the People and a long Prescription and says that either of them will give a Right And our Author though he pretends to give the Bishop's sence makes both of them together necessary to give a Right a long and uninterrupted Possession which is what the Bishop calls Prescription joyned with the Consent of the People so that he leaves out neither and nor as insignificant Particles and likes with better as more agreeable to his Design and at this rate he may make Convocations and Bishops speak his sence when he pleases But to gratifie our Author let us suppose the Convocation did own Athaliah to have been as throughly settled on the Throne as any Usurper can be while the right Heir is living and then the Consequence is That the Convocation teaches that Kings and Queens de Facto who have all the Settlement that can be had without Right may be Deposed and Murthered by their Subjects And will this Author say that this is the Doctrine of the Convocation Do they not expresly warn us against believing any Person who shall affirm by all the Arguments which Wit or Learning could devise that God had called him to Murther the King de Facto under whom he lived It seems then the Convocation made a great difference between the Case of Athaliah and other Kings de Facto who had no better Title nor more thorough Settlement than she had if they thought her settled in the Throne without which Supposition our Author's Argument is lost for they justifie the killing Athaliah and condemn the murder of a King de Facto and this I gave two accounts of in my Case of Allegiance 1. All that this Story amounts to is no more than this That when the legal and rightful Heir is actually possessed of his Throne Subjects may return to their Allegiance and by the Authority of their King prosecute the Usurper for Ioash was first Anointed and Proclaimed before any one stirred a finger against Athaliah now this is a very different Case from raising a Rebellion against a Prince who is in possession of the Throne to restore an Ejected Prince 2. But this was a peculiar Case for God himself had Entailed the Kingdom of Iudah on the Posterity of David and therefore nothing could justifie their Submission to an Usurper when the King's Son was found to whom the Kingdom did belong by a Divine Entail and by this Iehoiada justifies what he did Behold the King's son shall reign as the Lord hath said of the sons of David Now when God has Entailed the Crown by an express Declaration of his Will and Nomination of the Person or Family that shall Reign as it was in the Kingdom of Iudah Subjects are bound to adhere to their Prince of God's chusing when he is known and to persecute all Usurpers to the utmost and never submit to their Government But in other Kingdoms where God makes Kings and Entailes the Crown not by express Nomination but by his Providence the placing a Prince in the Throne and settling him there in the full Administration of the Government is a reason to submit to him as to God's Ordinance This our Author answers with great Triumph in his Postscript p. 4 5. but with how much Reason I shall now examine and I must begin with his Answer to the second This Distinction That God himself had Entailed the Kingdom of Iudah upon David's Posterity he says is not in the Convocation Book and so does not affect their Sence I grant it and therefore did not concern the Convocation-Book in the Story nor make any mention of it but only raised this Objection from the Story and gave that Answer to it by which Iehoiada the High-Priest justified what he did For tho' the Convocation takes notice of this Story yet they neither make nor answer this Objection in direct Terms They had another Design in mentioning it and fitted their Answers wholly to that viz. to prove against the Papists That no Priest in the Old Testament did ever Depose from their Crowns any of their Kings how wicked soever or had any Authority so to do And because this Example of Iehoiada used to be urged by them to this purpose they shew that no such thing can be proved from it But tho' the Convocation does not answer a Question which they never proposed yet this is a good Answer to it and agreeable to the Sence of the Convocation in that place for they take notice that Iehoiada when he had sent to the Levites and chief Fathers both of Judah and Benjamin acquainted them with the Preservation of their Prince and that it was the Lord's will that he should Reign over them which plainly refers to that Divine Entail of the

Crown upon David's Posterity as Iehoiada expresly told them Behold the King's son shall reign as the Lord hath said of the sons of David So that it is evident the Convocation itself answers the Difficulties of this Story by the Divine Entail and it is as true and proper an Answer to that Question Whether we may Murther a King de Facto to place the right Heir on his Throne since Iohoiada anointed Ioash and slew Athaliah To say That the Divine Entail of the Crown made a vast difference between the Case of Athaliah and other Kings de Facto who are settled in their Thrones as it is to that Question Whether the High-Priest have not Authority to Depose one King and set up another since Iehoiada actually did so anointed Ioash and killed Athaliah To say that this was done not by any ordinary Jurisdiction which the High-Priest had over Kings but in Obedience to God who had Entailed the Crown on David's Posterity He proceeds They do no not speak of this when they call Athaliah an Usurper and justifie the Proceedings of Jehoiada and the People against her but the reason they give is general The right Heir of the Kingdom being alive which extends to all Kingdoms that are Entailed and go by Succession This Author who would confine me so strictly to the Sence of the Convocation even where I don't appeal to it makes very bold with the Convocation himself For they do not offer to justifie the Proceedings of Iehoiada and the People against Athaliah by saying That the right Heir of the Kingdom was alive but only prove by this that she was an Usurper who had no legal Right to the Throne the right Heir being living But if our Author will think again I presume he will own that they are two very different Questions Whether such a Prince be an Usurper and whether he may be Deposed and Murthered The Convocation I 'm sure makes them two Questions when they will not allow of the Murder of a King de Facto But on the other hand the Convocation justifies Iehoiada from the express Command of God In all the process of which Action nothing was done either by Jehoiada the High-Priest or by the rest of the Princes and People of Judah and Benjamin which God himself did not require at their hands Joash their late King's Son being then their only natural Lord and Soveraign although Athaliah kept him for six Years from the Possession of his Kingdom How did God himself require this at their hands Was it only by the Principles of Reason and Natural Justice in setting the right Heir upon the Throne No by its being God's Will and God's requiring it at their hands they plainly mean GOD's entailing the Crown upon David's Posterity which made it the Duty of Jehoiada and the rest of the Princes Levites and People to yeild their Subjection to their lawful King and having done so and their King being in possession of the Throne to joyn together for the overthrowing of Athaliah the Usurper and that Jehoiada the High Priest was bound as he was a Priest to inform the Princes and People of the Lord's purpose which can refer only to this Entail that Jehoiada should Reign over them and likewise to Anoint him Which contains a particular Justification of all that was done and all resolved into the Will and Purpose of God that Ioash should Reign which was no otherwise declared but by God's Entailing the Kingdom upon the Posterity of David It was the Duty of Jehoiada and the rest of the Princes c. to yeild Subjection to their lawful King who was Heir by Succession for that they expresly make equivalent in the Kingdom of Iudah to being Elected and Named by God himself Can. 17. p. 28. And therefore Ch. 19. p. 30. affirm That they should receive such Kings as sent to them by God himself which proves that this cannot extend to Heirs meerly by Humane Succession which is not equivalent to God's Nomination Iehoiada sent thro' Judah for the Levites and chief Fathers both of Judah and Benjamin to come to him to Jerusalem Ch. 23. p. 41. and therehe discovers the King's Son to them Thus the Convocation says by the Constitution of that Government it ought to be that the Prince whom God had appointed should be made known to the People and they should chearfully submit to him Ch. 17. p. 27. and they add Afterwards also the like course was held upon the Death of every King to make his Successor known to the People Iehoiada who was High Priest gave this notice to the People and took a Covenant of them and Anointed their King and this also the Convocation says was his Duty As we have said of the People That when the Kings of Judah were to succeed one another their Duty was to come together with Ioy and Gladness to receive them for their Kings as sent to them by God himself and accordingly to submit themselves unto their Authority and Government So at such times the Priests for the most part besides their general Duties as Subjects had some further Service to be then by them performed the parts of which Service are all of them manifest in the Advancement of King Solomon to the Royal Throne of his Father David where the Priests by King David's direction did give Thanks to God and prayer for King Solomon and Zadock the High-Priest did himself Anoint him I suppose our Author may by this time be satisfied that the Convocation resolves all into the Authority of a Divine Entail and makes a great difference between a Divine and Humane Entail He adds And it is plain they thought of no such Difference as to this Matter but that a thorough Settlement of a Government and though attained by the same ill means was the same thing and had God's Authority in Iudah as well as any other Nation as in the instances of the Babylonians Macedonians and Romans whose Government over the Iews was not attained by honester Means than Athaliah's and was as much contrary to the Entail upon David's House as hers and yet they justifie and require Obedience to them but justifie the slaying her And therefore it is plain that by a thorough Settlement they do not mean a full Possession of Power in the Kingdom of Iudah as had the Babylonians Macedonians or Romans nor do they reckon God's Entail upon David's Posterity any ground of difference in this Matter for the Government of Iudah by the Babylonias was as much contrary to that Entail as the Government of Athaliah Now all this is answered in one word from what I have before discoursed The Entail God made upon David's Posterity did always oblige the Iews when they were at their own Choice and had Power enough to take the King on whom God had entailed the Crown which was evidently their Case when Iehoiada anointed Ioash and slew Athaliah but when they were under Force as they were under

first Case tho the Subject is taken Captive yet the foundation of the Relation is not destroyed for his Prince is on his Throne still in the actual administration of the Government tho he be violently torn from him so that this Relation may continue because he has a Prince to whom he is related but when the Prince is fallen from his Kingdom and Power the foundation of the Relation is at present destroyed the Kingdom is translated to another Prince and the Subjects and their Allegiance translated with it Our Author proceeds to argue from the Case of Ioash The Doctor 's distinction that is about a Divine Entail is against him 'T is true God did entail the Kingdom of Judah on the Family of David and for that reason they ought not to submit to an Vsurper But this is so far from being a reason why they may submit to one in other Kingdoms where Entails are made by Laws that it is a reason and a very good one why they ought not But before we hear his Reason I must observe that he mistakes the use of my Distinction which was not to prove That because God had entailed the Kingdom of Iudah on the Posterity of David and had reserved to himself a right in the Kingdom of Israel to nominate their King and entail the Crown when he pleased that therefore the Subjects of those Kingdoms might not submit to any other Kings whom the Providence of God placed in the Throne without such a Divine Nomination and Entail for it appears from what I have already discoursed that they both actually did and lawfully might submit to such providential Kings when either there was no King by God's Nomination or Entail or no such King was known but the use of the Distinction was to shew that in such Theocratical Kingdoms where God challenged a peculiar right to make Kings by his express Nomination or Entail though God may see fit sometimes to set a providential King upon the Throne yet whenever he nominates a new King or discovers the right Heir to whom the Crown belongs by a Divine Entail the Reign of such Providential Kings is at an end and the Subjects may and ought to depose or kill them and own the King of God's nomination so that if he will prove any thing from my Distinction with reference to other entailed Kingdoms he must shew that my Distinction proves that in such Kingdoms where God makes Kings only by his Providence a Humane Entail of the Crown will justifie Subjects in deposing and murthering a new King who is placed and setled in the Throne by Providence while the Legal King or Legal Heir is Living as much as God's express Nomination or Entail would justifie the deposing a Providential King in the Kingdoms of Iudah and Israel And now let us hear his Reason For says he God's entailing the Crown of Judah was the Law of that Kingdom in that respect and the people of other Kingdoms are as much bound to observe their own Laws as the people of Iudah were theirs All Humane Laws that are just bind in Conscience and according to the Doctor 's own Principles these Laws were made by God's Authority So that the Doctor mistakes the Question we do not oppose Humane Laws to God's Authority but we oppose Laws which are made by God's Authority and which are Rules to us to Providence which is no Rule When God entailed the Crown upon David's Posterity they had then a Legal Right to it and so hath every Family in other Kingdoms upon which an Entail is made by the respective Laws of the Countrey But what would our Author prove from this That in every Hereditary Kingdom the Legal Heir has a Legal right to the Crown as well as in Iudah and did I ever deny it or that the standing Laws of every Countrey are the Rule for Subjects in setting up Kings when it is their own free Act and Choice and who denies this too There is a Dispute indeed whether the Laws of England do oblige Subjects in all cases to make the next Lineal Heir to the Crown their King but no man ever denied but that in making Kings Subjects are bound by the Laws of the Land when it is their own free and voluntary Act. I am sure my Hypothesis is not concerned in this Question and therefore be it how it will it can prove nothing against me Or would he prove that when an Entail is setled either by Divine or Humane Laws God never interposes by his Providence to set up a King who has not this Entailed Legal Right This was manifestly false both in the Kingdom of Iudah and Israel which God had reserved for his own Nomination or Entail and yet He set up several providential Kings Athaliah in Iudah and Baasha and Omri and Ahab and Ioram and others in Israel and in all other Kingdoms at one time or other Or would he prove that when God by his Providence has setled a Prince in the Throne without a Legal Right Subjects ought not to obey him and submit to him as their King This is confuted by the Examples of Iudah and Israel who submitted to Athaliah and their providential Kings who had no Legal Right by a Divine Nomination or Entail and are yet never blamed for it Or would he prove that a Human Entail of the Crown does as much oblige Subjects in Conscience to pull down a King who is setled in his Throne by God's Providence with a National Consent and Submission but without a Legal Right to set the Legal Heir on his Throne again as Iehoiada was by virtue of the Divine Entail to anoint Ioash and slay Athaliah This is the single Point he ought to prove but I do not see that he offers any thing like a proof of it The sum of his Argument is this That a Human Entail of the Crown made by the Laws of any Countrey does in all Cases and to all intents and purposes as much oblige Subjects as a Divine Entail which is only the Law of the Kingdom too For the people of other Kingdoms are as much bound to observe their own Laws as the people of Judah were theirs The Dispute in general about the Authority and obligation of Humane Laws is very impertinent to this purpose for no man denies it But yet we think Divine Political Laws much more sacred and universally obligatory than any meer Human Laws tho they are made by men who have their Authority of Government and consequently of making Laws from God and I believe our Author is the first man who has equalled Humane Laws with those Laws which are immediately given by God But the Dispute between Divine and Humane Laws and a Divine and Humane Entail of the Crown are of a very different nature though they be both the Laws of the Countrey for which they are made as will easily appear if we compare God's making Kings by a providential settlement of them