Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	king_n	people_n	saul_n	1,961	5	9.6378	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A19328	The ungirding of the Scottish armour: or, An ansvver to the informations for defensive armes against the Kings Majestie which were drawn up at Edenburgh, by the common help and industrie of the three tables of the rigid covenanters of the nobility, barons, ministry, and burgesses, and ordained to be read out of pulpit by each minister, and pressed upon the people, to draw them to take up armes, to resist the Lords anointed, throughout the vvhole kingdome of Scotland. By Iohn Corbet, minister of Bonyl, one of the collegiate churches of the provostrie of Dunbartan.	Nicanor, Lysimachus, 1603-1641.	1639 (1639)	STC 5753; ESTC S119005	43,296	68

ought to feare the King for he is set over us to doe Justice Neither is the question whether Honour should be given to evill Superiours for as our Adversaries by moving of such questions at this time under pretext of dutie doe wrong and dishonour to the Kings gracious Majestie so we professe in the generall that the wickednesse of man cannot avoid Gods Ordinance and therefore although we had froward and wicked Superiours yet obedience and honour is to be given unto them as being set up by God as it were in his wrath Hos 13.11 Neither is the question whether we ought absolute obedience to an evill Magistrate for our adversaries whatsoever be their judgement and practice doe not affirme that malo in malo or ad malum est obediendum but that Kings are to be obeyed so farre as their Commandements are not contrary to Gods and if God command one thing and they the contrary in this case it 's better to obey God than man Neither is the question about the invasion of the King or any of his Kingdomes which is the despitefull and divellish calumnie of the disnatured enemies of this Kirk and Kingdome But the question is meerly and simply about our owne defence And in this also wee would put difference betweene the King resident in this Kingdome and by opening his eares to both parties rightly informed and the King farre from us in another Kingdome hearing the parties and misinformed by our adversaries Between the King as King proceeding Royally according to the lawes of the Kingdome against rebells and the King comming downe from his Throne at the feet whereof the humble supplication of his subjects yet lyeth ananswered furiously to invade his loyall and well-meaning people Betweene a King who is a stranger to religion and tyed no further but according to his owne pleasure to the professors of Religion within his Dominion and our King professing with us the same Religion and obliged by his fathers deed and his owne oath to defend us his owne Subjects our lives religion liberties and lawes Again difference would be put betwixt some private persons taking armes for resistance and inferiour Magistrates Counsellors Iudges Nobles and Peeres of the Land Parliament-men and Barons Burgesses and the whole body of the Kingdome except some few Courtiers States-men papists or popishly affected Betweene subjects rising or standing out against law and reason that they may be free from the yoake of obedience and a people holding fast their alleageance to their Soveraigne and in all humilitie supplicating for Religion and Iustice. Betweene a people labouring by Armes to introduce innovations in religion contrary to Gods Word and a people seeking nothing so much as against all novations to have the same Religion ratified which hath beene professed since the reformation and hath not onely beene sworne to solemnly long since by the Kings Majestie and the whole Kingdome both of old and of late but also commanded by the Kings Majestie to be sworne by his Councellors and all people as it was professed at first Betweene a people pleading for their owne fancies follies and inventions and a people suspending their judgement and practice about things controverted till they should be determined in a Nationall assemblie the only proper and competent jurisdiction and after determination receiving and standing for the Acts of the Assemblie The question then is whether in this case matters thus standing betwixt the King and this kingdome defensive warre be lawfull or whether the people ought to defend themselves against extreame violence and oppression bringing utter ruine and desolation upon the Kirk and Kingdome upon themselves and their posteritie That it is lawfull for us to take up Armes for our defence against such unjust violence it is manifest by these reasons following Anticovenanter I Many Tautologies are here used in stating the Controversie and you remove that which is the question and makes that the question which I am perswaded you know to be not the question 2. You multiply words to affect the ignorant the question is not say you whether we ought to honour obey or feare the King or whether we ought to give Caesar that which is Caesars Know you not that the last question comprehends all these is not honour feare and obedience Caesars due 3. You are very charitable that you say whatever be out judgement and practice yet we affirme in word that absolute obedience in evill is not to be given to wicked men 4. You make many differences about defensive armes to no effect The first difference betweene the King resident in the Kingdome hearing impartially the complaint of both parties c. I pray you tell me if the King were here resident and did impartially heare you and gave sentence against you would you not then resist Would you not even then be judges in your owne cause and take up defensive armes Whether the King be at home with you or abroad he shall still be one partiall and unequall judge so long as he goeth not with you Your second difference is of the like stuffe Between the King proceeding by lawes and the King comming furiously against his Subjects His Majestie was still well pleased and so remaineth to proceed according to the Laws but you will not stand to his judgement but must be judges in your owne cause and now if his Majestie after so long contempt of him and his Lawes bee forced to draw the sword of Iustice you cry out hee commeth furiously against you Your third difference is of the same nature Betweene a King who is a stranger to religion and a King who is of the same with us What make you the difference herein Will you not resist a stranger to religion if he invade you by armes The stranger to religion by the Law of God and his calling is bound to defend the Religion within his Dominions aswell as our King onely this our King is more obliged by his generall calling of Christianitie and by his owne fact and deed and blessed be God he will ever do it Your fourth difference is of no purpose also Betweene a private man and the whole bodie of a Kingdome for the most part c. Tell me then doe you grant that one private man ought not to defend himselfe against the Supreme Magistrate by armes albeit it bee true that he may not and you doe here deny it yet you must be forced to acknowledge the lawfulnes of it for afterward your reason shall make it good that you maintain the lawfulnesse of a private mans taking up of armes against the Lords anointed You doe no small in jurie to our Nation to affirme that the whole bodie of the Kingdome except a few c. 1. For it 's notorious that the whole body of the Kingdome for the most part did never dreame of such a thing as to take up armes against the Lords anointed but were most deceitfully parswaded that their covenant did not carry

with Your next example is of Iehojada who commanded Athaliah to be slaine 2 King 11. The very bare reading of the History answers you sufficiently Athaliah was an usurper of the Crowne which by right belonged to Ioash which was hid six yeeres from her cruelty After Iehojada the High-Priest Ioash's Uncle and Tutor with the Captaines and Hundreds with the Levites and chiefe Fathers of Israel had brought forth Ioash and put on him the Crowne and declared him King then by authority of Ioash the King thus seated in his throne Iehojada caused slay that bloudy usurper of the Kingdome Athaliah So this was done by the authority of the King Now nothing can be gathered from this but if any Subjects for certaine yeeres have taken upon them Royall authority if the righteous King doe recover his own authority he may command the usurpers to be slaine This point shall not be denied you Your last example from Scripture is also against you cōcerning the men of Keilah If you wil without prejudice judiciously consider the place you shall see that if you will prove the lawfulnesse of your defence it must be from Davids flying from Saul I have often seene both in the Fathers and modern Writers Davids example produced for to shew the unlawfulnesse of resisting Princes but never till now for the lawfulnesse of resistance Consider first then in generall that as Saul was ever invading David so he was ever flying from him 2. That where David did hide himselfe he found oft-times treacherous men to discover him promising to deliver him unto Saul So the Ziphits ran to Saul saying Doeth not David hide himselfe with us in strong holds in the wood in the hill of Hachilah Now therefore come downe and our part shall bee to deliver him into the Kings hand And thus being oft betrayed he was forced to forsake the Kingdome altogether to goe to the King of Gath. Now for the men of Keilah they were much obliged to David for delivering them from the Philistims and therefore the place being indebted to him and also farre from Saul he desired to remaine there so long as he might as having no certaine dwelling place else-where Saul hearing that he was there said God hath delivered him into mine hand for hee is shut in by entring into a towne that hath gates and barres By all appearance it was some of Keilah that brought Saul this newes shewing him what advantage he now might have of David being in such a close towne As for David being wise as the Angel of God when he heard of his discoverie to Saul he foresaw that if the men of Keilah would bee unthankfull they might keepe him within the towne to the King and not suffer him to flie away Therefore he enquires of God first if Saul would come there to seeke him for hee had no purpose to goe from Keilah if Saul were not to come for poore man he had no place to goe to Secondly hearing that Saul would not faile to come downe hee began to suspect the men of Keilah of deceit that they would shut the gates and keep him in till the King should take him having such advantage of the gates and barres that hee could not flie as his usuall custome was Therefore hee demands of God the second time Will the men of Keilah deliver me 1 Sam. 23 12. and my men into the hand of Saul that which is here translated deliver in the originall is shut up Will the men of Keilah shut mee up as is also exponed in the Margent of the Bible in that place So the meaning is not as you most seditously expound it Will the men of Keilah not defend mee but deliver me to Saul who am resolved to keepe this walled Citie against him But this is the meaning Will the men of Keilab not let mee goe away but shut me up close the gates that I cannot eseape by flying This lets us see that David had a purpose to flie from Saul which makes him so carefull to try whether the men of Keilah would hinder him by shutting their gates that finding them deceitfull he mightflee in time And therefore it 's without warrant you say that David with his six hundred men purposed to defend themselves in the citie agaist the King If hee had purposed to keepe the towne he would have beene well pleased how close soever the gates had been shut and would rather have enquired Lord will the men of Keilah open the gates and let in the King then will they shut the gates upon me 2 Though your exposition were true that David purposed to keepe the towne against the King the question yet remaineth Whether he ought to have done so or not a facto ad jus non valet consequentia 3 It proveth not your conclusion David was but one man who tooke an army of six hundred men to defend himselfe against the King as you dreame Therefore when the King persecuteth a private man he may gather an army and resist the King which I hope you will not at least cannot sustaine and yet you must sustaine this or else passe from your Argument Finally if any of you were in the case that David was in to be the Anointed of God and appointed by God to succeed Saul it feares mee you would take more upon you then David did for ye have done more already and some of you are not ashamed to call the Nobility Ephori and that they put on the Crowne with the King in his Coronation turning all to a finistrous and seditious sense As for your examples from reformed Churches since we live not by Examples but by Lawes I will not stand upon them as not knowing the Lawes and Government of forraigne Kingdomes If they have Lawes for their resistance you produce these examples most impertinently 2. From facts to prove the Lawfulnesse of resisting is ridiculous 3. None of these by resisting gained so much as by suffering as experience too late doth shew Covenanter From Testimonies not onely of Popish Writers 8. Argument but of the Divines of the reformed Churches even such as will bee strong pleaders for Monarchie Neither is Calvin against us but for us From the testimonies of most judicious Lawyers and learned men who have written contra-Monarchomachos Anticovenanter I grant Iesuites yet not all are for your tenet for herein you agree contrary to the Doctrine of al sound Divines ancient and moderne You name not any Protestant Divine but Calvin who is flat against you for this purpose I referre you to learne it out of the Duplie of the most learned Doctors of Aberdeen You nominate no judicious Lawyers I know your Advocate Master Iohnstone is for you but the question is too Deepe for his shallow brain Covenanter From the mutuall contract betweene the King and the people as may be seene in the Acts of Parliament 9. Argument and Order of Coronation Anticovenanter Answ 1. To this I give

a Reall and Royall answer from the most gratious and most learned King Iames of Blessed memory in his Booke intituled Ius Liber a Monarchiae pa. 193. Nego ego tempore Coronationis inter regem subditos pactum ini●i c. I deny sayes he that in the time of the Coronation there is any such covenant betweene the King and his Subjects But this is manifest that at that time or at the beginning of his raigne sponte suá of his owne accord the King promiseth to discharge honestly and faithfully that charge which God hath committed and entrusted him with 2 Though it were granted that there were such a mutuall contract yet his Majesty demonstrates most clearely that it cannot helpe this cause If the King sayes hee shall not keepe his part of the Covenant who shall be judge between these parties there is none who hath but attained to a smal taste of the civill Law who knoweth not that the contract cannot be esteemed violated by the one partie nor the other absolved of his part of the contract before that it be made manifest by the cognition and Tryall of the ordinarie judge which of the parties hath departed from the Contract For this is the caution of every civill and municipiall Law otherwise what could hinder but that every man in his owne cause may be both Judge and partie then the which there can bee nothing thought more absurd Now in that contract between the King and his Subjects without all controuersie onely God is Iudge to whom alone the King is bound to give acount of his administration because in that oath at the Kings inauguration both the judgement and vengeance of his perfidious dealing is given onely to God Therefore since God alone is the judge between the parties and since the try all and vengeance onely doth belong to him it must necessarily follow that God must first pronouce the sentence against the King before the people can be thought free of their part of the Covenant of obedience and subjection And so there is no man so blind but he may see how unjustly you make your selfe judge in your owne cause and usurpe the place of God 3. From this your mutuall contract you must shew that his Majesty not only obligeth himselfe to performe his Kingly office but also giveth power to the people when they judge that he failes in his part to resist him by force of armes or else you are idle to alleadge such contract And if you will produce this I have no more to say but that the King hath denuded himselfe of Royall authority and devolved it into the peoples hands he onely in name and the people in effect being King and supreme judge in their owne cause and so the King must stand Vt magna nominis umbra But you would doe well to produce such a contract out of the Vtopia of your owne braine Covenanter From Acts of Parliament ratifying the three Estates Authority 10. Argument and from our owne ecclesiasticall and civill Historie Anticovenanter 1 There can be no Acts of Parliament but those the King sets downe with advice of his Estates 2 And can you shew any Act of Parliament for the lawfulnes of resisting Princes or can you shew that there is any Act of Parliament giving authority to the Estates to resist His Majesty to execute Iustice 4 Doe you attribute any authoritie to these which ye cal the three Estates without the King You must know that the King is the onely Law-giver the Parliament is but his extraordinarie Councell and the Estates thereof are his extraordinarie Counsellours by whose advice hee enacts Lawes Consider also there was no Law in the Kingdome of Scotland before the Kings of it for before Fergusius his dayes we were but like Salusticus Aborigenes Genus hominum agreste liberum atque solutum sine legibus sine imperio But when the first King did conquer this Land he and his Successours gave Lawes divided the whole Land which was their owne and distinguished the orders of men and did establish a politicall government This is clear by our Chronicles and Ex archivis regijs in quibus antiquum primaevum jus asservatur satis constat Regem esse Dominum omnium bonorum directum omnes subditos esse ejus vassallos qui latifundia sua ipsi dōino referant accepta sui nempé obsequij servitij praemia 4 If you attribute such incompatible power to these Estates Why did not you by vertue thereof conclude this warre You ought first to hold a Parliament and then conclude warre But pardon me you have done so Your three Tables is for Your three Estates which hath ordained this warre 5. Which are these three Estates now Episcopacie is thrust from you and over-ruling Elders are in their place who are busie Bishops in another mans Diocesse and have been too busie in my parish And shall they supply their place in Parilament As for your Ecclesiasticall and civill Historie if that be Knox Buchanans regni jus expresly condemned by Act of Parliament you may be ashamed to name them and ought to have covered their nakednesse if you had respected them You have published in print to the great disgrace of Knooe that he called kneeling at the Communion An Invention of the Divell and will you here make him a Doctor of Treason Covenanter From our Covenant lately sworne and subscribed 1. Argument binding us to defend the Kings Majesties person in defence of the true Religion and to defend the true Religion against all persons whatsoever Anticovenanter This is indeed Ilias malorum your Covenant binds you to it and to much more even to whatsoever shall seem good to the most part of you by cōmon consent were it never so hainous For that clause of your Covenant wherein you are obliged to whatsoever shall seeme meete by common consent is a great Ocean a blanke to be filled up with what you please it seemeth good to you already for the keeping of the first Table to break the second in working the works of unrighteousnesse As to with-hold from Ministers their Stipend as conducible for your ends to threaten them with big words to lay violent hands on them in the discharge of their calling in pulpit 〈◊〉 which I have suffered and which is more to contemne and disobey Supreme Authoritie yea to take up armes against it and if you by common consent shall thinke meete to remove that blocke of authoritie out of your way you are obliged to it by your Covenant for certainely this is very conducible to your ends For if your Calder wood be true Kings are enemies to Religion in his Altare Damascenum he affirmeth that Natura insitum est omnibus regibus odium in Christum And so King James of Blessed memorie is called by him Infestissimus ecclesiae hostis And your Master-man Cartwright layeth down a ground for this overthrow of Kings as you may reade in the