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
B06596	Sherlock against Sherlock. The master of the temple's reasons for his late taking the oath to their Majesties, answered, / by the rector of St. George Botolph-Lane. With modest remarks on the doctors celebrated notions of allegiance to soveraign powers.	Wagstaffe, Thomas, 1645-1712.	1691 (1691)	Wing W216A; ESTC R186142	12,557	24

follow meerly from the Law of Succession that Subjects are bound in Conscience to own no Kings who is not the rightful Heir Ibid. pag. 52. 53. The Queston is not Whether the Monarchy be Hereditary that is agreed but whether in an Hereditary Monarchy we must pay Allegiance to no Prince who is not the legal Heir tho' possessed of the Throne this the Lawyers deny and produce Law for it and if there be such Laws It is certain by Law we may pay Allegiance to a King in Possession notwithstanding the fundamental Constitution of an Hereditary Monarchy for the Law which makes one allows and commands the other and then it is an Hereditary Monarchy with this reserve of paying Allegiance to the King in Possession when the legal Heir cannot obtain his Right And this I take to be a very wise Constitution which secures the Kings Right as far as Law can do it but if the King should be deprived of his Right which the Experience of all Ages proves he may be doth not think fit that the Government should sink with him and therefore makes provision for the Security of the Government and of the Subjects under the Regnant Prince which the Reasons and Necessities of Government require and justifie tho' there had been no Law for it Now it is enough to prove that Allegiance is by Law due to a King de facto if Treason may be committed against him for no Treason can be committed where no Allegiance is due This is confessed that all such Acts as are Treason against a King de jure are Treason when comited against a King de facto but not say they because Allegiance is due to him but because they are against the order of Government and therefore are Treason by the presumed consent of the King de jure In Ans That such Acts are against the Order of Government and very destructive to it is the only reason why they are made Treason by Law and this is a good reason why the Law should make them Treason against a King de facto as a King de jure Ibid pag. 57 58. Yet one may reasonably presume that a King who forsakes his Kingdom to consult his own Safety will give his Subjects leave to consult theirs If this will justifie a King to save himself by leaving his Kingdom why will it not justifie Subjects when their King has left them to submit and comply with the prevailing Powers as far as is necessary to preserve themselves That is even by Oaths of Allegiance Self-preservation is as much a Law to Subjects as to the Prince and he is as much Sworn to Govern and Protect his Subjects as they are to Obey and Defend him and if the necessities of Self preservation Absolve him from his Oath of Governing and Protecting his People I desire to know why the same necessity will not absolve Subjects from their Oaths to their Prince A Prince may Govern by Law and Protect his Subjects and yet in Fact they deny their Allegiance to him Alleg. p. 42. It is true we must in all Cases be contented to suffer in doing our Duty for we must chuse rather to Suffer than to Sin and it is no Argument that anything ceases to be my Duty because it exposes me to Suffering But then we must be very sure that it is our Duty that it is expresly enjoyned us by the Laws of God and Nature before we venture to suffer for it But then we are to learn our Duty not from any express Law of God or Nature but from the Reason and Nature of things It is a sufficient Argument that it is not my Duty which will expose me to great sufferings without serving any Good end nay which exposes me to Sufferings for contradicting the natural end and intention of that Duty for which I pretend to Suffer But let us grant that this Principle is the best Security to the Rights of Princes is the Right of any Prince so Sacred as to stand in competition with the very being of Human Societies and the Safety and Preservation of all his Subjects and must we then defend a Princes Right with the Destruction of the Nation and the Ruin of all his Subjects Which is most necessary That the Nation should be or that such a Prince should Govern it p. 45. The Rector of Saint George Botolph-Lane In his Case of Resistance THere is another Objection a gainst what the Apostle affirms That there is no Power but of God The Powers that be are ordained of God For is the Power of Victorious Rebels and Vsurpers from God Did O C. receive his Power from God then it seems it was unlawful to Resist him too or to Conspire against him To this I answer That the most Prosperous Rebel is not the Higher while our Natural Prince to whom we owe Obedience and Subjection is in Being And therefore tho' such Men may get the Power into their hand by God's Permission yet not by God's Ordinance and he who Resists them does not Resist the Ordinance of GOD but the Usurpations of Men. In Hereditary Kingdoms which is England the King never Dies but the same minute that the natural Person of one King Dies the Crown descends upon the next Blood and therefore he who Rebelleth against the Father continues a Rebel in the Reign of the Son which commences with his Father's Death It is otherwise indeed where none can pretend a greater Right to the Crown than the Vsurper for there Possession of Power seems to give a Right Thus many of the Roman Emperors came to the Crown by very ill means but when they were Possest of it they were the Higher Powers for the Crown did not descend by Inheritance but sometimes by the Election of the Senate sometimes the Army which always draws a consent after it And therefore the Apostle does not direct the Christians to enquire by what Title the Emperors held their Crowns but Commands them to submit to those who had the Power in their hands for the Possession of Supreme and Soveraign Power is Title enough when there is no better Title to oppose aginst it There are Two Examples in Scripture which manifestly confirm what I have now said The first is in the Kingdom of Israel after the Ten Tribes had divided from the House of Judah and the Family of David GOD had not entailed the Kingdom upon any certain Family He had indeed by Abijah the Prophet promised after Solomon's Death Ten Tribes to Jeroboam the Son of Nebat 1 Kings 11.29 c. but had afterwards by the same Prophet threatned Jeroboam to destroy his whole Family Chap. 15.10 11. Baasha fulfils this Prophesie by the Traiterous Murther of Nadab who successed his Father Jeroboamin the Kingdom and Vsurpt the Government himself and slew all Jeroboam's House ver 28 29. This Murther and Treason is numbred among the Sins of Baasha for which GOD afterwards threatened to destroy his House as