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	lord_n	saul_n	2,776	5	9.6848	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88587	A modest and clear vindication of the serious representation, and late vindication of the ministers of London, from the scandalous aspersions of John Price, in a pamphlet of his, entituled, Clerico-classicum or, The clergies alarum to a third war. Wherein his king-killing doctrine is confuted. The authors by him alledged, as defending it, cleared. The ministers of London vindicated. The follies, and falsities of Iohn Price discovered. The protestation, vow, and the Covenant explained. / By a friend to a regulated monarchy, a free Parliament, an obedient army, and a godly ministry; but an enemy to tyranny, malignity, anarchy and heresie.	Love, Christopher, 1618-1651.	1649 (1649)	Wing L3168; Thomason E549_10; ESTC R204339	63,269	85

his government he doth not plead for popular tumults but saith which you have unworthily left out that such a tyrant may be punisht but yet only by them qui ea potete donati sunt who are indued with such an authority now that is most true that if the laws and constitutions of a Kingdome or Common-wealth be such that there are select men impowered by Law to restrain and punish the vices of a tyrant in such a case 't is unquestionably lawfull And if you can shew that the House of Commons have power by the knowne laws of this Land to condemn and execute any man much lesse the King I shall then be silent When a tyrant is taken away either by the suffrage or consent of the people fit Deo auspice saith Zuinglius Answ. 1. Here you name the man and mention the words but quote not the place where such a passage is to bee found in Zuinglius his works who hath four large volumes extant I perceive your drift is to put him that should answer you to the more pains to manifest your abuse of both of Author and Reader 2. T is true there is some such passage in Zuinglius as is quoted by you yet I must tell you as the Devill did with that scripture he quoted to Christ so do you with Zuinglius words viz. leave out the most considerable clause and grosly pervert the meaning of his words which I shall evidently demonstrate His words are these When a Tyrant is taken away by the consent or suffrages of the whole or better part of the people it is done God disposing it Now you have left out these words of the whole or better part of the people It may be your conscience told you you that the whole or better part of the people would never have given their consent to cut off the King and therefore you have done it without them never desiring their consent so that what Zuinglius saith will not justifie your practice which was done by the lesser and not the better neither of the people Besides you grosly abuse and pervert the meaning of his words as if Zuinglius justified in that place the taking away the life of a Tyrant which he was utterly against as appears in that very Article where this passage is sound T is true he was for the deposing of Tyrants so it were done by the whole or better part of the people but yet against the killing of them as he saith expresly Quopaecto tyrannus movendus sit ab officio facile est conjectare non est ut ●umtrucides nec ut bellum tumultum quis excitet quia in pace vocavit nos Deus sed aliis viis res tentanda est c. that is after what sort a Tyrant should be put out of office it is easy to conjecture t is not that thou mayst kill him or raise war or tumult against him because God hath called us in pea●e but the thing is to be assayed by other wayes c. Yea t is further to be observed how he defines a Tyrant viz. to be such an one qui vi regnum accepit per ambitionem irrumpit who hath gotten a Kingdome by force and breaks it by ambition There is no doubt but such may be deposed yea destroyed too if the people have strength to do it See more to this purpose in a book not long since put out as it is upon very good grounds supposed by Mr. Rutherford of Scotland called Lex Rex and especially in Mr. Pryns works c. Answ. 1. You still use your old device name the man but not quote the place I shall not contest with you whether Mr. Rutherford made that book called Lex Rex yet this I will maintain that in all that book there is not one passage that I can find for bringing the King to capitall punishment I am sure in many places he is against it in answering that objection which Royalists made that because David would not stretch forth his hand against the Lords anointed therefore the King being the Lords anointed cannot be resisted To which he gives this answer David speaketh of stretching out his hand against the person of King Saul no man in the three Kingdomes did so much as attempt to do violence to the KINGS PERSON and in another place he saith one or two tyrannous Acts deprive not a King of his Royall Right and a little after he saith any man is obliged to honor him as King whom the people maketh King though he were a bloodyer and more tyrannous man then Saul in p. 233. he saith That the King is an eminent servant of the State in the punishing of others if therefore he be unpunishable it is not so much because His Royall power is above all Law-coaction as because one and the same man cannot be both the punisher and the punished c. Many such like passages as these are to be found in Lex Rex Is it like that Mr. Rutherford if hee be the Author of it should plead for putting the King to death in one place yet declare himselfe against it in so many places throughout his book 2. Whereas you would make Mr. Pryn a patron of your opinion I need say nothing in his vindication he is alive and now among us more able then I to vindicate himself 't is true in his Appendix to his fourth part of the Soveraign power of Parliament and Kingdomes he hath made many instances of States and Kingdoms that have deposed and punisht their Princes Yet he gives no instance of a Protestant State that ever did so yea in his speech in the House of Commons on D●cemb 4. 1648. he saith expresly that though there be some Presidents of Popish States and Parliaments deposing their Popish Kings and Empeperors at home in foraign parts in an extraordinary way by power of an Armed party yet there is no President of any one Protestant Kingdom or State that did ever yet judicially depose or bring to execution any of their Kings and Princes though never so bad whether Protestants or Pap●sts c. 〈◊〉 I hope our Protestant Parliament will not make the first President in this kind nor stain their honour and Religion with the blood of a Protestant King c. And thus I have laboured to clear the Authors you quoted most of them make against you none speak for you I leave the Reader to judge As you quoted some few Authours who seemingly might speak for you but really against you I might produce a cloud of witnesses against you in this point not only of Protestant Divines since the Reformation against killing Kings in the generall but also multitudes of Protestant Divines declaring against the cutting off the head of our King in particular as the Ministers beyond the Seas the Ministers of Scotland the Ministers of Essex and Lancashire and of many other places of the

by the mouth of the Prophet Hosea saith that He will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the House of Jehu That is the blood of Ahabs 70 sons which was shed by the Rulers of Iezreel at Iehu's command I wish those who had a chief hand in putting the King to death would consider whether a Politicall design rather then a conscientious respect to justice was not a chiefe motive ingaging them to that horrid attempt 4. Most of those men in scripture who spilt the blood of their Kings although wicked did not dye a naturall death but came to an untimely end T is said in 2 King 21. 23. that the servants of Ammon conspired against Him and slew the King in His own House then 't is said in the very next verse the people of the Land slew all them that had conspired against King Ammon Againe Elah King of Israel was slaine by Zimri a Captaine of his chariots as he was in Tirzah drinking himself drunk 't is said Zimri went in and smote him and killed him But what became of Zimri Jezabel could ask had Zimri peace that slew his master 2 King 9. 31. No he had not for when 't was told in the camp of Israel that Zimri had conspired and also slain the King upon this the Army of Israel fell into a mutiny made Omri King and came against Zimri who for fear was driven to run into the palace of the Kings house put the house on fire about his ears and was there burnt to ashes that was the end that Zimri came to Another King that was killed by his own Subjects was Iehoash King of Iudah 't is said his servants arose and made a conspiracy and slew Jehoash in the House of Millo But what became of these men that slew Iehoash 't is said expresly 2 King 14. 5. that as soon as the kingdom was confirmed in the hand of Amaziah the son of Jehoash that he slew his servants which had slain the King his father So likewise Shallum killed Zecharaiah King of Israel but he himself was soon afterward killed by Menahim the sonne of Gadi as 't is storied 2 King 15. 10 14. Again Pekah the son of Remaliab killed Pekaiah King of Israel and soon after he himselfe was killed by Hoshea as 't is recorded 2 King 15. 25. 30. Many other instances might bee alledged if I should exactly looke over the Histories of the Kings of Israel but these may suffice 5. T is to be observed that Omri who did succeed Zimri who came to so untimely an end was made King by the Souldiers or Army of Israel and was he better then the rest no he was rather worse 't is said expresly that Omri wrought evill in the sight of the Lord and did worse then all that were before him It is my wi●h that those Rulers or Representatives or cal them what you wil who have the rule of the Kingdome now in their hands and have gotten it by the power of an Army doe not worse then all the Kings that ever went before that we feel not their little fingers heavyer upon us then the Kings loins 6. The children of Israel from Saul their first King to Zedekiah the last which was about 480 yeares were never under such intolerable oppression and misery as in the times of those Kings before mentioned who were so put to death such violent removalls of their Kings made such strange alterations and popular commotions in the Kingdom of Israel that the people had not peace or settlement but lay under the miseries either of oppression or Civil wars thus it was after Zimri King of Israel was burnt in the place of the Kings house then Tibni and Omri had a contest about a succession or claime to the Kingdome upon this 't is said the people of Israel were divided into two parts half to make Tibni King another halfe followed Omri to have him King upon which a bloody war followed for three years and upward T is my prayer that a war might not follow in England as did in Israel This instance may suffice in stead of many I shall mention no more It seems these Ministers of Jesus Christ in London I mean these subscribers could aquiesce in such concessions from the King c. then a little after the Ministers of Jesus Christ in London plead Covenant for the Parliaments acquiescing in the concessions of the King at Newport which by the testimony of the whole Ministry of Scotland acquiesced in would destroy both Religion and Covenant Answ. 1. T is no wonder that you who make so little conscience to maintain errors should make no more of speaking falshood and that not only against the Ministers but against the Parliament also you say the Parliament did acquiesce in the Kings concessions which they did not yea they did wholly wave that question Whether the Kings Answers to the Propositions of both Houses were satisfactory and like men of wisdome honor and conscience they voted only this That the Answers of the King to the Propositions of both Houses are a ground for the House to proceed upon for the settlement of the peace of the Kingdome 2. The Ministers did not plead Covenant for the Parliaments acquiescing in the Kings concessions I am sure their Representation and Vindication hath no such intimation in them the Ministers did hope and beleeve the Parliament would have demanded more and the King yeelded to more for the good of the Kingdom 3. The Ministers of the Church of Scotland did not say that the Parliament did or would acquiesce in the Kings concessions as satisfactory but only they gave a timely caution that if they should be acquiesced in it would bee dangerous and destructive to Religion and Covenant Look back into your former course of life and call to mind how many oaths and subscriptions you have made from time to time over and over c. And how have you directly for sworn your selves against the light and sense of your own judgment and conscience have wee not cause to judg better of many of the Prelaticall party who being men of learning and conscience and never so violent against their opposers in Church and State as your selves c. Answ. 1. Is it not more then enough for you to accuse the Reverend and godly Ministers of falsity vain-glory malignity but must you now lay Perjury to their charge also 2. Suppose any of them I am sure all did not did swear or subscribe to the Church-government by Bishops and to the book of Common-prayer for 't is of that you speak and should now renounce them yet 1. I thought that you would account it a badg of their glory and not asperse them with the stain of Perjury for thus doing 2. Was it agreeable to the Law of love or rules of Christianity to say that so many godly and conscientious Ministers did forsweare themselves against

they have prospered and the Church of God have been persecuted and kept under by them 3. You think that you have a shift that will help you out by saying that successes with their circumstances as praying and solemn appealing unto God vindicates the mind of God To this evasion of yours I shal say but this Successe may not alwaies fal to that side though just which doth pray and appeal to God but on that side which is unjust and doth neither As is clear in the case of the men of Judah they sought unto God and askt Counsell of God before they would fight with the children of Benjamin yet for all that they lost in two battails 40000 men yet their cause was good their prayers and appeals to heaven were solemn and serious 4. Consider God may give the Army successes not out of any love or approbation of their wayes but out of love to his own name and people whose work for some time they were imployed about Cyrus was successefull against the Chaldaeans these successes were given him not for his own sake but for the sakes of the children of Israel God may use the Army as a battail axe to break the enemies of his Church in pieces and yet neither love their persons nor own many of their actions but break them in the end Dionysius did ill to say because he had a prosperous voyage at sea that therefore the Gods did favour Sacriledge God neither favours nor loves Rebellion though they may prosper that are guilty of it If you do build so much on successes yet make not present but finall successe the ground of your confidence if the Army persist to justifie their sinfull actings mark what will become of them in the latter end He conclude this with the wish of the Poets Careat successihus opto Quisquis ab eventu facta notanda putat That impulse of spirit and those impressions of heart that stirred up Jehoiadah the Priest to raise up severall parties to put Queen Athaliah to death for her cruelty and murthers did stirr up the Army Parliament and Court of Justice to put the late bloody Tyrant to death and wee may expect rest and peace as the issue thereof Answ. 1. Had the Army as good grounds to put to death King Charles as Jehoiadah had to kill Queen Athaliah I should not open my mouth Consider 1. Athalia● was an usurper of the Crown of Israel but so was not King Charles of the Crown of England 2. What Jehoiada did do was by Authority derived from the young King Joash who was proclamed and crowned King by the consent of the whole realm 3. Iehoiada was not only a Prince of his Tribe and the young Kings uncle but also hee was as it were Lord Protector of the young King during his minority and therefore might without question legally put that usurper to death Prove the King to be such an usurper as Athaliah was or the High-Court and Army to have such an authority as Iehoiada had and I le be silent 1. If she had had a true and legall Title to the Crown as the King had 2. If he had solemnly swore to God to preserve her person as you did to preserve the Kings 3. If shee had been no Idolater as the King was not 4. If he had not authority from the young King for doing what he did would he have done it no doubtlesse 2. I shall pass that by that you put the Army before the Parliament and only speak to that impulse of spirit that stirred up the Army and Court of Justice to put the King to death I shall yeeld that they did by an impulse of spirit but yet I have reason to beleeve 't was by the impulse of that spirit that now works mightily in the children of disobedience because 't was done without and against the rule of the Word as I shewed before by which as the spirit so all the impulses of the spirit are to be tryed and if they agree not thereto they are Satanicall suggestions not the Spirits inspirations 3. And whereas you expect that the issue of putting the King to death will be rest and peace I must tell you the blood of Kings hath been oftentimes the seeds of dissentions commotions and desolations not of rest peace and establishment unto Kingdoms as I told you before so I say again that the children of Israel from Saul their first King to Zedekiah their last were never under such intolerable oppressions and miseries as in those times wherein their Kings though wicked and bloody were put to death by their Subjects That the murderer shall surely be put to death is a known Precept of God if this must be dispensed withall shew us the absolute present and clear necessity of it if you cannot will you speak wickedly for God c. As for the Armies proceedings if there was a necessity that the Land should be cleansed from blood-guiltynesse that the great ends of the Covenant and all our wars should be secured c. then was there a necessity on the Army to take that course they did Answ. 1. I may answer you by way of Retortion that the murderer should be put to death is a known Precept that Goring and Owen had murdered many was a known practice for their pardon there is a known Vote now if they were innocent why were they condemned if guilty of blood why were they spared can you despence with blood and none else 2. Though murdering of one personally and maliciously cannot be dispensed withall yet God never required that all who in a military way shed blood should be put to death as is clear in the case of Absolons Rebellion and the Benjamites unjust war with many others neither David nor the men of Iudah when the sword had determined the controversy in the field on their sides and had cut off many of the evil doers held themselves bound to cut off the remainders that was left of the Armies either in the one or the other If you think that this Precept viz. that the murderer be put to death reaches to all blood spilt in a military way then are you bound that every man that was in the Kings Armies should bee put to death else according to you the land would be defiled with blood 3. To what you say in the last place that there was a necessity on the Army to take that course they did if there was a necessity that the Land should he cleansed from blood c. I shall return this briefe answer 1. The Army pleaded a necessity in the year 1647. for things of a quite contrary nature to what they pleaded a necessity for in Nov. 1648. 2. Who are the most competent judges the Parliament or the Army to judge of this necessity if you say the Parliament they saw no such necessity why did not the army then acquiesce in their judgments as they once promised to do If