Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	homage_n	king_n	scotland_n	1,835	5	9.5273	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A44305	A survey of the insolent and infamous libel, entituled, Naphtali &c. Part I wherein several things falling in debate in these times are considered, and some doctrines in lex rex and the apolog. narration, called by this author martyrs, are brought to the touch-stone representing the dreadful aspect of Naphtali's principles upon the powers ordained by God, and detecting the horrid consequences in practice necessarily resulting from such principles, if owned and received by people.	Honyman, Andrew, 1619-1676.	1668 (1668)	Wing H2604; ESTC R7940	125,044	140

ponit secures arbitrio popularis aurae no King is so absolute to rule as he lists we abhor quicquid libet licet he is subordinate unto God and his Will and he ought also to walk according to the particular good Laws he hath made with consent of his people Digna vox est Majestate regnantis se alligatum legibus principem fateri and we doubt not our King doth and will do so but he is so absolute that if he deviate which God avert he is not under co-active power of Subjects that they should have Law-claim against him and in their Courts of Nature and Necessity as this man loves to speak pronounce judgement upon him to destroy him A Crown was never given him never accepted by him on such horrid termes far less that by virtue of this supposed tacite Covenant any minor meer private party of the people might without and against the great body have liberty to pull not only the King but all Magistrates out of their seat punishing them and possessing themselves in their rooms which is the expresse doctrine of Naph out-stripping his Master Sequiturque patrem non passibus aequis 4. There are several wayes of conveighances of Kingdoms Where there is freedom of election of the particular person to reign there may possibly be expresse limiting conditions allowing a reserve of Power to some not meer subjects to coerce and reduce in order diviating Soveraignty As in the Empire of Germany and Kingdom of Poland or if there be any like whose Kings are not veri nominis Reges but personated Kings and Monarchs as a p●inted man is not a man there is some likeness to a Kingship and Monarchy and some power over others given for executing the Laws But the Supreme Majesty doth not wholly reside in these more then in the mock Kings of Sparta when they were under the tutory of the Ephori But in the conveighances of many Kingdoms and all properly called Monarchies there is neither tacit nor expressed Covenants impowering others to be Judges over the King which is the design these Covenants are pleaded for how many Kingdoms are and have been attained to by conquest in a just War which is a sufficient title and no the right of robbers as some call it albeit there be direct opposition so long as there is power and a tacit dissent when their power is gone yet the conquest coming by a lawful and well grounded War the dominion and the authority even over the unwilling and repining subjects is lawful though it may be made surer by their after consent to submit And if this purchased power be hereditarily transmitted the successors receives power from their Parents not from the people nor is there any shaddow of tacit or express Covenant in this matter if ye Rule well we shall obey you otherwise not 5. If we look to our own Kingdom of Scotland from the beginning there will be found no such Covenant on which the constitution of the same is founded There are four or five remarkable instances concerning this Kingdom to clear the matter 1. Look to the foundation thereof in Fergus the first 330. yeares before Christs birth Buchannan himself cannot say that he is admitted King upon conditions the subjects indeed by their oath confirmed the Kingdom to him and his posterity but no oath was required of him nor of any of his successors till King James the sixth his time of which we shall anon hear Of this Fergus the black Book of Pasley as I have heard from credible Reporters saith Fergusius se Regem fecit 2. Fergus the second the 40. King the great restorer of our Nation who began to Reign Anno. Chr. 404. did by his valour under the conduct of divine Providence and by the help of Strangers Danes and others with some small remainder of Scots recover the Kingdom after that the whole Nation was banished and no Scots-man might abide in Scotland under pain of death he was not beholden to the people for the Kingdom nor had it by paction with them 3. Kenneth the first the 50. King Anno Chr. 605. who destroyed the Picts and enlarged his Kingdom by the accession of theirs purchasing more and better Lands then he had before which he distributed to his subjects he held not this purchased Kingdom of them by contract or paction to be subject to them on whom he bestowed the Lands thereof The 4. is Robert Bruce the 97. King Anno Chr. 1036. Whom our Lawes of Regiam Majestatem c. calls Conquestor magnus he re-conquered the Kingdom when it was almost wholly alienated and subdued by the English and but little reserved The English held it for many years And the Nobility of Scotland first at Barwick then at St. Andrews in plain Parliament swore homage and obedience to the King of England Yet that Prince having a prosperous gale of divine Providence assisting his Valour recovered the Nation out of bondage And who will assert there were pactions between him and the people to bring him under their coactive judicial Power A fifth instance there is right memorable in our own times It is known our Nation was totally subdued by the English and continued so for the space of ten years The representatives of Shires and Cities and Towns combined into a Common-wealth-government and sent their Commissioners to the meeting thereof at London where the Kings interest was disclaimed yet in a wonderful way God brought him in again and finding us at his coming a fully conquered and subdued Nation restored us to our freedom from the bondage of Forraigners If any will say that it was upon his account the Nation was brought to the suffering of that bondage and that there did ly bands upon him as our sworn King to free us when he should be in capacity to do it It may be answered 1. It is known that when the fatal stroke that sunk us into bondage was given there was an express disowning of his right by publick Judicatories of the Land in the quarrel with the English Sectaries before Dumbar 2. Whatever engagements were upon him for the good of the Nation Yet if these mens principles were to be followed they could had no force on him to move him to labour our vindication into liberty for do not they teach that in the mutual Contract and Covenant betwixt King and People the People are loosed from their duty if the King fail in his frangenti fidem fides frangatur eidem And why then is not the King loosed if the people fail on their part It is known that although the Nobles and Body of the People were well enough affected to the King and cordially loved him when they were overpowered and could do nothing yet by their representatives he was disowned which in Law would be reckoned their own deed And if a sworn people desert and disclaim their King by their representatives may not the King also have the benefite of the

conditional Covenant and leave them as he found them in bondage to forreigners But such was his Majesties Graciousness and Wisdom as well as Conscience of duty that although the Nation had failed much to him he would not walk after the counsels of these men And we may all things consider'd assert that the people of Scotland do rather owe their liberty to him then he doth owe his Authority to them or by vertue of any Covenant with them But not to dwell too much on this as to any expresse Covenant enstating the People or any part thereof in a coactive judicial Power over our Princes to punish them in case of aberrations in Government from the foundation of our Kingdom of Scotland there is no such thing to be found Buchannan himself can never show that before King James the sixth his time any of our Kings at their installing did swear to or covenant with the people albeit the people have sworn homage to them none of them all before that time did swear covenant-wise at their reception of the Crown nor can it be evidenced that Loyalty was engaged to the King if they thought he ruled well and no otherwise Some of our Historians cited by Blackwood make mention of one of our Kings Gregory the Great who did reign Anno Chr. 876. who when he was crown'd did in his piety swear to defend the liberties of Christian Religion of the Church of all the Priests and Ministers of Religion and ordained that all his Successors Kings of Scotland should swear that oath at their entry to the Government Yet this is not mentioned by Buchannan least perhaps our Kings might think obligations do lye on them by that Law to maintain Popery far advanced in Gregories time But no other oath is mentioned till James the sixth his time when he was in the craddle his Regent Murray fram'd an oath to be sworn by him and his Successors recorded Parliament 1. King James the 6. but that oath never any did swear for him albeit at his Coronation in the moneth of July before that Act which was not made till the 15. of Decemb. after Anno 1567. the Earles of Mortoun and Hume did promise some such thing for the King as Buchannan sayes nor did he himself ever swear it when he came to be Major and from under the Tutory of Regents When he entred actually to reign and accepted the Regiment in his own person Anno 1577. being of the age of twelve years no man durst ever offer that oath to him nor when he came to be of full and perfect age Not but that it is in it self and rightly understood a good and godly oath but in regard of the evil Principles with which some Subjects were in that time poisoned as if such an Oath and Covenant gave a coactive right and power to Subjects over their Prince in all their apprehensions of his failing as now we are taught by men of the seditious stamp it was thought fit to wave the putting such an oath unto him at his entry to the actual Government he not having taken it before that the fancy of such a coactive Covenant which might breed evil humours in the Subjects might be removed Whither King Charles the first did swear that same oath recorded in the first Parliament of King James the sixth we cannot certainly say there is nothing left upon publick record of that matter at his Coronation but if he did so he was the first King of this Nation that received the Crown in way of Covenant with the people or swearing to them yet had he reigned eight years over us before that time and no man durst or in reason could say as now is printed that he was no King till he took the Coronation oath How this came to passe we know not but it is to be believed on good ground could that King once have thought that his taking of that oath although it be in it self godly and good should have been so far mistaken by his Subjects as that he should have been thought thereby to have submitted himself to their coactive and punitive power in every case wherein they or any party of them being meer private persons might think him deficient he would rather have endured any death then so to cast himself away at the pleasure of malecontented parties amongst the people taking advantage against him by that oath But it shall be avowed that that King of glorious memory did never shrink from the observance of that godly oath whatever the malice of his clamorous and embitter'd enemies represents to the contrary Neither hath his Majesty that now reigneth swerved from the observation of that oath hitherto and we are hopeful Gods grace shall preserve him hereafter from any such thing But the matter concerning this civil Covenant is not yet at an end for the Author of L. R. bends his wit to wrest the holy Scriptures to make this Covenant necessary yea for such ends as he designs viz. the coaction and punishing of the Prince and backs his wrested Scriptures with some sophistical reasonings Did we indeed find sufficient ground for such a Covenant or for such ends in holy Scriptures we should strike sail and no wait for ragged reasonings to cast dust in our eyes But when we look to Gods directions about setting up of Kings amongst his people and upon the doing of the thing suitably to these directions We professe in sincerity that we find nothing but that it was Gods mind that both King and People should do their mutual duties the one to the other but that there is any such Covenant impowering people to use force upon the King to throw him down punish or destroy him when they or any particular party of meer private persons apprehend the ends of Government to be perverted There is no mention of any such Covenant Deut. 17. where the manner of setting a King over them is prescribed there is no such thing done when Samuel by Gods appointment anoints and sets a King over the people nor is there any such thing found at the entry of any of the Kings of Gods people to their Government only there are two instances upon special and extraordinary occasions of such Covenants betwixt the King and People the import of neither of which is to state the people in coactive judicial Power over these Kings and which cannot by any Logick be drawn to be Patterns of necessary doing such a thing in all Kingdoms The first instance is of David 2 Sam. 5.3 1 Chr. 11.3 where though he had reigned seven years and a half in Hebron over the men of Judah without any such Covenant 2 Sam. 2.4 Israel and the rest of the Tribes having all that time resisted David and cleaved to Saul's Son as their King 2 Sam. 2.10 The King being killed and Abner the General they come to a submission to David and he being willing to entertain them enters in covenant with them in a