Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	israel_n	king_n	tribe_n	3,514	5	9.6944	5	true

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

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

cession of the Person in whom the Right was and this he says is the case In this Chapter the Convocation mentions several Variations of Government as to the Forms Aristocracy and Democracy and as to the ambitious encroaching of Kings upon their Neighbours and particularly the Four Monarchies and the King of Babylon upon the Jews All which respective Governments tho they were begun by Rebellion Ambition and unlawful means which the Convocation condemns yet afterwards they became lawful Governments and had such a right to the respective Governments they did possess and this is to be thoroughly setled To the death and cession of the person in whom the Right was he adds in another place when the right to the Government is acquired by prescription and that is a long and uninterrupted possession joyned with the consent of the people that is a possession of an hundred Years as he has learnt from Bishop Buckeridge So that to make a legal settlement of a Government illegally begun the rightful Prince and all his Heirs must die or resign up their Government to the Usurper or the Usurper and his Heirs must reign about an hundred Years and then he may come to be a legal King though this settlement by prescription I do not well understand For suppose the Usurper should have an uninterrupted possession of an hundred Years will this make him a rightful King without the death or cession of the whole Royal Family If it will how does the Royal Family come to lose their right by an usurped possession of their Throne for how long soever it has been it is an usurpation still and the right is still in them and if an usurpation will destroy their right why not a short usurpation as well as a long one for it is all but usurpation still and how will our Author justifie the people in consenting that such an usurper should reign while their rightful King is living or how long must the usurper reign before the people must consent to it and how long must he reign afterwards with their consent before he comes to be thoroughly setled as a lawful King or if the lawful King must die or resign his Crown to settle the usurper what need of so long a prescription since he tells us that a possessory Right is something and where there is no better that ought to carry it and the conclusion from hence is this That any person by what means soever gaining the possession of the Throne if there be no better claims against him then he hath a right to it and then and not till then he is throughly setled So that according to my understanding this presciption signifies nothing If there be no body that has a better claim to the Crown possession gives a right if there be I desire to know of our Author whether an hundred years possession is a good right against a better claim or how this better claim comes to expire after an hundred years usurpation But however we will take it all together and see what can he made of it Now I observe 1. That all the Convocation says relates to the visible and actual alterations of Governments and Governours and translation of Kingdoms brought about by the wickedness of men but disposed by the divine foresight and providence to accomplish his own wise counsels Now this is matter of fact not of right unless all alterations of Government are rightful and legal and therefore the settlement of such alteratious is an actual not a legal settlement of them And this brings the Dispute to matter of sense for if such alterations of Government and translation of Kingdoms may he made and setled without the death or cession of the rightful King and without the prescription of an hundred years then the death or cession of the King or a long prescription cannot be necessary to the settlement the Convocation speaks of for there may be an actual and visible settlement without it which is all that is required to an actual and visible translation of Kingdoms and that is all the Convocation intended And he who will venture to say that a new Prince can't be actually and visibly setled in the Throne while the old rightful King is living and makes his claim shall dispute by himself for me 2ly The Convocation expresly teaches that the Authority which is God's Authority and must be reverenced and obeyed when such Alterations are throughly setled is the Authority which is unjustly gotten or wrung by force from the true and lawful possessor and then it is plain it is not a legal Authority by the death or cession of the rightful King for we are to obey it as God's Authority though it be wrung by force from the true and lawful possessor and though the present possessor should have no other visible Title to it but such unjust force The words are these The Authority either so unjustly gotten or wrung by force from the true and lawful possessor being always God's Authority and therefore receiving no impeachment by the wickedness of those that have it is ever when any such alterations are throughly setled to be reverenced and obeyed c. Now let any man who understands Grammar construe this otherwise if he can What Authority is that which must be obeyed and reverenced It is says the Convocation the Authority unjustly gotten or wrung by force from the true and lawful possessor and therefore not a new legal Authority gained by death or cession or a long prescription What is God's Authority which we must obey It is no other than the Authority unjustly gotten or wrung by force c. which can receive no impeachment by the wickedness of those who have it By what wickedness their wicked and ungodly and violent means of getting and having it for the Convocation speaks of no other wickedness but the wickedness of Usurpation so that we must obey the Authority because it is Gods even when men have it wickedly and therefore before they have acquired any new legal Title to it And this I think plainly proves that the settlement the Convocation speaks of is not a legal settlement for that would make the Authority legal whereas these Alterations may be throughly setled whilest the Authority exercised in such new Governments is unjustly and wickedly got and possessed This I think if our Author be not very unreasonable is enough to justifie my first Assertion That the Convocation speaks of illegal and usurped Powers and yet affirms the Authority exercised by them is God's Authority and therefore those Princes who have no legal Right may have God's Authority I proceeded to prove the same thing from other testimonies out of the Convocation Book For they teach that the Lord in advancing Kings to their Thrones is not bound by those Laws which he prescribeth others to observe and therefore commanded Iehu a subject to be anointed King over Israel to punish the sins of Ahab and

Jezebel p. 46. And the Lord both may and is able to overthrow any Kings or Emperors notwithstanding any claim Right Title or Interest which they can challenge to their Countreys Kingdoms or Empires These Passages our Author has thought fit to take no notice of for if they do not prove God's Sovereign Authority to remove and pull down the most rightful Kings and give his Authority to those who have no right and place them in the Thrones of those who have the right there is no sense to be made of them Our Author's hypothesis is as direct a contradiction to this as words can make it for if no Prince can have God's Authority nor must be obeyed unless he have a legal Right either an old Hereditary Right or a new Acquired Right by the death or cession of the Royal Family or by a long prescription then God is bound to those Laws in advancing Kings which he prescribes to others that is to adhere to Humane Rights then God may not overthrow any Kings or Emperors who challenge their Countries Kingdoms or Empires by any just Claim Right Title or Interest Then he cannot set up any Kings or Emperors who have no just right and claim For he cannot unmake a rightful King if he cannot absolve Subjects from their Allegiance nor make a King without a legal Right if he cannot give him his Authority and transfer the Allegiance of Subjects to him God can remove the Man by death but cannot unmake the King unless he unmake himselfe by resigning his Crown He can set a Man upon the Throne but cannot make a King of him without the leave of the Right Heir under an hundred years prescription Whereever our Author learnt this Doctrine I am sure this Convocation never taught it him To confirm this I observed that the Convocation teaches that Obedience was due to such Kings as never could have any legal Right to the Government of Israel as the Kings of the Moabites and Aramites of Aegypt and Babylon and yet says that the Israelites knew that it was not lawful for them of themselves and by their own Authority to take Arms against the Kings whose Subjects they were though indeed they were Tyrants And that it had not been lawful for Ahud to have killed King Eglon had he not first been made by God the Iudge Prince and Ruler of the People On the other hand our Author affirms that all these Kings had a legal Right and were legal Powers and that it appears in all and every one of the Instances the Convocation gives of Government to which they say obedience is due that these Governments had such a Right This is a bold Undertaker unless he only play with equivocal words and that I believe is the truth of the matter for such legal Rights as he has found for these Princes will quickly transubstantiate all usurped Powers into legal Governments But our first Inquiry is What the Convocation thought of these Kings as for instance the Kings of the Aramites and Moabites who ruled over and oppressed Israel whether they thought them the legal and rightful Kings of Israel they call indeed the Israelites their Subjects as our Author observes and from thence proves that these Kings had a legal power over Israel but the mischief is that the Convocation in express words owns them to be only Kings de facto to whom they were in subjection and teaches that if any man shall affirm that any person born a Subject and affirming 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 yea though he should first have procured himself to be proclaimed and anointed King as Adonijah did and should afterwards have laid violent hands upon his Master ought therefore to be believed of any that feared God he doth greatly err Which is spoke with reference to Ahud's killing King Eglon who it seems was but a King de Facto in the judgment of the Convocation and I suppose our Author knows what a King de Facto signifies in opposition to a King de Iure one who is King without a legal Right and yet the Convocation asserts that such Kings de Facto must not be murdered by their Subjects which is an express Determination against our Author Let us now see what legal Right and Title our Author has found for the Kings of the Aramites and Moabites and Babylonians over Israel and for all the four Monarchies which were successively Erected with the most manifest Violence and Usurpation And that is the Submission both of Prince and People which he says I grant gives a legal Right whereas I only said That the Submission of the Prince might be thought necessary to transfer a legal Right which I think differs a little from granting it does so The truth is our Author is here blunder'd for want of clear and distinct Notions of what he writes and imposes upon himself and others with ambiguous Terms which if they were truly stated would clear all these Difficulties Legal Powers signifie such Powers as are according to Law but then there are different kinds of Laws and when we speak of legal Powers unless we agree by what Law we call them Legal we shall never understand one another Now we may understand Legal either with respect to the Laws of Nature the Laws of Nations or the Laws and Constitutions of a particular Nation or Kingdom and in this last sence 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 This is the reason of the Distinction between a King de Iure and de Facto which relates to the particular Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom a King de Iure is a rightful King by the Laws of the Land a King de Facto whatever other Right he may have is not rightfully and lawfully possessed of the Crown by the Laws of Succession proper to that Kingdom And if our Author will take the Controversie off of this Bottom and dispute only about legal Powers in general we will then admit his Plea of Submission and joyn issue with him upon that Point And this is all the Mystery I intended when I affirmed that the Moabites and Aramites Aegyptians and Babylonians could not have a legal and natural Right to Govern Israel that is that by the Constitutions of the Iewish Commonwealth they could not give the Power of the Government to a Stranger nor set up a Prince over them who was not of their Brethren and therefore no Strangers neither Aramites nor Moabites could be their legal Kings As for their Submission when under Force it shall be considered presently This made me smile to see how he was concerned to ward off a Blow which was