Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	england_n	king_n	rebellion_n	2,837	5	9.3314	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65954	An answer to Dr. Sherlock's Vindication of The case of allegiance due to sovereign powers which he made 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 the same author.	Wagstaffe, Thomas, 1645-1712.	1692 (1692)	Wing W205; ESTC R39742	234,691	160

thoughts Why did not be produce any one Doctrine or o●e Expression of mine that tended that way There is one small reason for it because he could not I have nothing to say to the ingenuity of such a practice let the Dr. satisfie himself about that as well as he can But when he is so hard put to it to discharge his account of Providence from justifying an unreasonable and impious Doctrine when he hath not answer'd any one of my Arguments nor so much as offer'd at them as we shall see presently in the very same case to ●all a recriminating and crying out of dis●●●●ving and ri●i●u●ing Providence is a strain of B●llin●ga●e Logick and nothing else but out-facing an Argument instead or answering it And this will be yet more plain when we see his Reason For says he let me ask him this God in the K●●●s in England or not But how comes this Question to prove that 〈◊〉 or ●i●●cu●● Providence For it is brought ●or th t ●●●son if his Particle For means any thing And if the proof depends upon answering this Question the Dr. should have ●●id a little before he had told me what some people will suspect except those people would suspect also what I would answer And then I do not know how far a previous suspition may justifie the charge of a future fact or because the Dr suspected that I would give an ●p●curean Ignorant or Atheistical Answer therefore to fave further trouble and to dispatch the business all at once he might charge ●●e with not understanding or ridiculing Prov dence by way of anticipation He goes on i● He does God makes Kings in England 〈◊〉 which I hope our Author will grant or he renounces the Jure Divino with a witness and is that such a business Why may not a man renounce the Jure Divino as well as Legal Powers Pref. to Case of Alleg. if there be occasion is any man forbid to grow wiser and to alter his mind when he sees good reason for it Methinks be might let renouncing alone but if God does make Kings in England how does he make them he sends no Prophets among us to anoint Kings But to save him the trouble of any more Questions I answer tho God sends no Prophets he sends Laws among us to tell us whom he hath appointed to reign over us God doth not govern mankind like Beasts in a Desert where every thing is Prey and Possession but by the Rules of Society which confine and determine Property and fix the bounds of it And it would be a wise Question to ask How does God make a man a Right Possessor of an Estate in England He does it by his Providence but it is according to Laws How did God make Kings in Judah after he had entayl'd the Crown why he made them by his Providence but it was according to that entail and so in other Kingdoms God makes Kings and private Proprietors by his Providence but it is according to the standards of Right and Justice that are fix'd and setled among men and authoriz'd and confirm'd by God himself and by the express declarations of his will And whatsoever exceeds and is contrary to these is Invasion and Wrong Robbery and Rapine expresly disallow'd and forbid by God himself And to say God gives by his Providence what he forbids by his Revealed Will is an Impious Doctrine and justifies my charge against the Drs. interpretation that it makes Providence a Rule of Practice against Right and Justice And a man may as well say that God gave to Adam and Eve the forbidden fruit tho he forbid them upon pain of Death to eat of it because all Events are by Providence and they were permitted by Providence to take it And this answers what follows Suppose says he a Prince ascends the Throne by the most unjust force and ungodly arts P. 59. who places such a Prince on the Throne if God don't Our Author according to his Principles must answer that by God's permission he usurps the Throne but is no King much less a King of God's making well let him call him what he please it seems a Prince may ascend the Throne and govern a Kingdom for many years without God's Authority and then I desire to know whether God rules in such a Kingdom while an Vsurper fills the Throne I say yes God does govern by his Providence but not by communicating his Authority to the Usurper And what does the Dr. think of those times of Usurpation in this Kingdom between 48 and 60 Did God govern in the Kingdom of England all those 12 years or not And therefore what he says for indeed will any man say that God governs such a Kingdom as is not govern'd by his Authority or Minister is perfect fallacy by his own Principles for he himself says it and I ask him had the Rump or Cromwell God's Authority or not If they had then four or five Leaves of his Book and his account of their not being settled and all that he says on that Head is meer trifle and contradicts what he says here For if they had God's Authority they ought to be obey'd and no pretences of Loyalty could excuse it But if not then God may govern a Kingdom when those persons who actually govern for many years have not his Authority nor yet are his Ministers otherwise than as the Devil and wicked men are Ministers to execute the designs of his Providence but not as deriving any Authority from him or thereby claiming any Right by vertue of their Actual or Providential Government And thus his following Question is answer'd Does Providence and Government signifie only his permission that God looks on and sees men snatch at Crowns and take them and keep them and exercise an Authority which he who is universal Lord of the world never gave them Now here is a large compass and if the Drs. Argument signified any thing it would prove that all the Sinful Events that ever were or shall be in the world have God's Authority respectively annex'd to them for if it does follow that because Providence and Government do not signifie permission that because God does not meerly look on the affairs of the world therefore whatever Authorities and Powers men snatch and exercise and keep God who is the universal Lord of the World gives them Then it plainly follows that whatever Powers men have and whatever Possessions or Goods they snatch or keep tho never so unjustly they are all the Gifts of God and there is a Right and Property in them deriv'd from the Universal Lord of the World But to our Instance And then the Rump and Cromwell and the High Court of Justice exercis'd God's Authority and Charles the First was murder'd and his Son rob'd of his Crown by God's Authority For Providence and Government signified the same in those days as they do now And I wonder what the peoples consent signifies

according to the Rule and Standard of Right in the Kingdom of Judah and the Dr. urges it to prove the unjustifiableness of acting in the same manner in the like case in any other Country at this rate the Dr. if he please may prove from the Convocation that Rebellion and Resistance is lawful in other Countries tho not in Judah for the Convocation refers to Gods Entail when it speaks of the obedience of the Jewish Subjects and therefore according to the Dr. Kings that are so by Gods Entail must not be resisted but Kings that are so by Humane Entails may And I wonder what reason he can give why the Convocation when they speak of Divine Entails to justifie the adhering to the lawful King and deposing an Usurper is to be understood any more in opposition to Humane Entails than when they speak of the very same to justifie the Duties of Obedience and Non-resistance but the truth is this is nothing else but shameless fallacy and howsoever it might look in another it is not very pardonable in Dr. Sherlock All that the Dr. proves is that the Convocation and Jehoiada himself when they justifie his adhering to his Rightful King and deposing the Usurper refer to the Divine Entail which was the foundation of the Regal Right in the Kingdom of Judah and upon the account of which he was the lawful King and the other an Usurper And from hence would make his Reader believe that they taught that in other Kingdoms where the Entails of the Crown are made by Humane Laws the Subjects ought not to stand by the Rightful King nor depose the Usurper but stand by him and assist him against the Rightful King which is a wild and extravagant as well as a sophistical conclusion and any man but the Dr. would conclude the direct contrary that because in the Kingdom of Judah the Subjects were bound to own their dispossessed King and assist him in the recovery of his Rights and depose an Usurper that wrongfully possessed his Throne because God by Entail had six'd and setled the Crown in one Family and by that had made the Right to the Government to be in them therefore in other Countries because the Laws had entail'd and fix'd the Crown in a certain Family the Subjects are bound to do the same to their Rightful King For tho the Entails be differing the Reason and Equity of both is the same the King of Judah had a Right to the Government by Divine Entail and the Kings in other Countries by Humane Entails but they both have right and the Laws of doing Right are eternal and immutable however the fixing and determining that Right may be various And I believe the Dr. is the first that from hence made a negative argument for tho there have been those who have said the examples of Government and Obedience in the Scriptures do not affect us because the Polity and Constitution of the Jewish Commonwealth was differing but to say that because the Jews were bound to observe their Laws of Government because they were appointed by God himself therefore the Subjects of other Governments are not bound to observe the Laws of their respective Constitutions is a strein beyond the Moon and fit only for the Dr. when he maintains paradoxes Upon the Restoration of Edw. 4. the Parliament and Kingdom did as Jehoiada had done before they had recourse to the Laws of the Land which were the Standard of the Right to the Crown and they did the same upon the Legal Entail as Jehoiada did upon the Divine Entail they establish'd the Rightful King and depos'd the Usurper and I believe it was never question'd but they acted as warrantably and justifiably as Jehoiada tho he did it by virtue of a Divine Entail and they by virtue of a Humane Entail but it must be confessed that the Drs. distinction tho it was then known yet the corrupt and perverse use of it was never known before 'till he hath now found it out to support an Hypothesis every way as absurd as the use he makes of this distinction I had further said with respect to the Convocation as the Dr. observes That they do not speak of this the distinctio between Divine and Humane Entails 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 entail'd and go by Succession To this the Dr. replies that I make very bold with the Convocation for saith he they do not offer to justifie the proceedings of Jehoiada and the People against Athaliah by saying that the Right Heir of the Kingdom was alive but only prove by that She was an Vsurper 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 Vsurper and whether he may be deposed and murthered In answer to this I have only these things to observe 1. That here is one point gained and that is that according to the Dr. The sense of the Convocation is that the Death of the Right Heir makes a Legal Right to the Crown to him that Possesses it for he says that they prove from the Right Heirs being living that Athaliah was an Usurper and had no Legal Right to the Throne plainly implying that if he had been dead she had not been an Usurper and would have had a Legal Right to the Throne and he tells us that an Usurper is such a one as hath no Legal Right to the Throne And so the Dr. must grant me that a Legal Right may be conveyed as well by the Death as by the Cession of the Right Heir But then all his impertinent distinction vanishes when he talks before of Legal with respect to the Law of nature Vindic. p. 11. the Law of nations and the Laws and Constitutions of a particular Nation and saith he in this last sense Legal is understood by all men who understand themselves in this controversie of Legal Powers that those only are Legal Powers who have the rightful Authority of Government according to the Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom which they govern Now I suppose the Dr. will take it ill if I should say he does not understand himself and therefore by Legal he means Legal according to the Constitutions of the Kingdom then I hope whatever he had said before he will not now think it so great a blunder for me to assert that a Right to a Government may be acquir'd by the Death or Cession of the Right Heir for we are to suppose the Dr. understands himself Vindic. p. 11. and has clear and distinct notions of what he writes tho he will not allow it to his Answerer when he says the same things that he does But