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	power_n	regal_a	2,103	5	11.1413	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A91256	A revindication of the anoynting and priviledges of faithfull subjects. Or, A briefe reply to an idle pamphlet, intituled, An answer and confutation of that groundlesse vindication of Psal. 105. 15. (touch not mine anoynted, and do my prophets no harme) from some trayterous exposition of schismaticks: declaring to the world, that this was spoken principally and peculiarly of kings, and not of inferiour subjects, &c. Wherein the insufficiency and ridiculousnesse this Answerers no-answer, is briefly demonstrated, the Vindication justified, and the text of Rom. 13. cleared from some misconstructions (against subjects taking up meere defensive armes in any cases) which the Answerer (out of Dr. Fernes Resolution of conscience, for want of matter of his own) hath thrust upon it, to delude some scrupulous consciences. With a briefe exhortation to peace, with truth, righteousnesse, and holinesse.	Prynne, William, 1600-1669.	1643 (1643)	Wing P4053; Thomason E244_40; ESTC R212568	15,035	8

a few men in number yea very few c. He suffered no man to do THEM wrong but reproved even Kings for THEIR sakes saying Touch not mine anointed c. all in the plurall number Now admit these Patria●kes themselves as this Answerer would perswade us were Kings and Princes yet their wives children and servants were no King nor Princes therefore these words being spoken of their wives children and servants as well as of themselves they were uttered of them not as Kings and Princes but inferiour subjects and Gods faithfull chosen servants as is resolved Psal 105. 6. Esay 41. 8. cap. 44. 1 2. 2. These words were uttered of them not in the time of their greatnesse and prosperity when or where they ruled like Kings and Princes and had the government of Church and State as this Answerer dreams but as the Psalmist directly resolves ver 12 13. When they were but a few men in number * See Gen. 12. 20. 26. yea very few and strangers in the Land when they went from one Nation and Kingdoms to another and sojourned privately in an obscure manner in Egypt and Gerar under King Pharaoh and Abimelech not as Kings and Rulers but as strangers and subjects therefore they were spoken of them not as Kings and Princes but as strangers and subjects fearing God 3. These Patriarcks were no actuall Kings nor Princes as this Answerer fableth for 1. they had no Kingdoms Principalities or Teritories of their own over which to raigne but only their own familes which were very small as the Psalmist determines vers 12. When they were but few men yea very few in number and Jacob himselfe too Gen. 34. 30. And I being few in number but 70. soules at most Gen. 46. 26 27. they shall gather themselves against me and slay me c. Yea they with their families had then no certain habitation but went like pilgrims and strangers from one Kingdom and Nation to another confessing that they were but pilgrims and strangers upon earth Psal 105. 13. Heb. 11. 13. Gen. 17. 8. c. 36. 7. c. 37. 1. Deut. 23. 7. Ps 39. 12. therefore they were no actuall Princes Kings and Rulers 2. The Scripture never cals them Kings or Princes and if they had carried themselves as such they should have been but usurpers upon those Kings and Princes Crownes and Royalties in whose Kingdoms they alwaies sojourned not at Kings and Princes but strangers and subjects in some sort True it is that the Scripture cals them and others Patriarcks but it was many ages after and that in the New-testament not the Old not in regard of any Regall power or authority actually vested in them as Kings but because they were the * Heb. 7. 42 Act. 7. 8 9. e 2 29. fathers and most eminent men of their families both for antiquity and piety Whence Abraham is stiled not onely * Num. 1. 2. c. 20. 15. Psal 21. 4. father Abraham but the * Acts 7. 2. 12 15. c. 3. 17. R●m 9. 5. Heb. 1. 1. 1 Ioh. 2. ●3 Iohn 8. 13. Luk. 1. 55. father of the faithfull 3. This answerer confesseth that the Regall government preceded the Patriarchall therefore the Patriarchall was not Regall nor the Patriarcks Kings by his own confession Which words of his if absolutely intended to wit that those three Patriarcks * Ioh. 8. 39 53. Rom. 4. 1 12. Iam. 2. 11. Luk. 1. 73. c. 16. 24. Abraham * Rom. 4. 11 16 17 18. Isaac and Jacob were before there were any Kings are fals for there were Kings before them Gen. 14. 1. to 19. If relatively in reference only to the Israelites then it is true that the Regall government succeeded the Patriarchicall yet nor immediately for they were governed by h Josh 1. 5 16 17. 18. Judges throughout 1 Sam. 12. 6. to 13. Moses Iosuah and sundry Iudges who were no Kings many hundred yeeres after these Patriarkes their government being not Regal till Saul was anointed their king by Samuel at their earnest request Which very desire of changing the government into a Monarchy and setting up a King in stead of Iudges is charged on them as a great sin 1 Sam. 8. 6 7 8. 19 20. c. 10. 19. c. 12. 17 19 20 25. Saul then being their first King these Patriarks and Judges were certainly no Kings as this blind Doctor fancieth them against Scripture and story a King I answer that the Hebrew phrase as the Margin of our Bibles renders it is not a mighty Prince Answ but a Prince of God amongst us that is a spirituall Prince not temporall or one whom God doth principally blesse and favour so Gen. 26. 28 c. 32. 28. Psa 45. 16. Rev. 1. 5. 6. compared together expound it 2. Though the word Prince in Scripture doth sometimes signifie a King yet usually it denotes nothing but a great Noble man the head or chief person of a Tribe or family some great Officer Counsellor of State or Ruler under Kings or superiour Magistrates witnesse Gen. 34. 2. c. 12. 15. Num. 1. 16. c. 7. 2. 3. 10. 11. c. 17. 2 6. 7. Josh 9. 15. 18. c. 22. 14. 32. 1 Sam. 29 3. 2 Sam. 10. 3. 1 Chro. 4. 38. 2 Chro. 12. 5. 6. c. 32. 3. Ester 1. 3. 11. 14. Neh. 9. 32. 34. prov 28. 2. Jer. 2. 28. * 1 King 14 7. c. 16. 2. with infinite other texts The stiling then of Abraham a Prince is no proof at all that he was a King for then all great Subjects and Officers of State usually called princes should by this argument become actuall Kings and Gods anoynted in a politicke sense as wel as their Soveraignes which this Answerer under pain of high treason dares not grant 3. This injunction Touch not mine anoynted was given to King Pharaoh and Abimelech with reference to Abraham Isaac and their families whiles they were but in a low condition and their houshold very few in number v. 12. 13. not when they were in their princely greatnesse and rich estate This text therefore wil no waies prove that it was spoken of them as Kings and Princes As for Abimelecks speech to Isaac Goe from us for thou art much mightier then I and Gods giving Jacob the dew of Heaven and fatnesse of the earth it proves them no more to be actuall Kings and Princes then the Scriptures styling all the men * Josh 10. 2. 2 Sam. 23. ● 16 17. of Gedeon mighty men and Boaz with others mighty men of wealth sheweth them to be Kings and Princes too All which considered I thinke all indifferent men will and must conclude for the Vindicator against the Answerer that Touch not mine anointed * Ruth 2. 1 2. Kin. 15 20. was not spoken principally and peculiarly of Kings or of Abraham Isaac and Iacob as they were Patriarks Kings and Rulers but of inferiour subjects and of those Patriarks as they were strangers and subjects fearing God

And that this is no trayterous exposition of Schismaticks as this Answerer most blasphemously stiles it but the genuine proper exposition and true sense of the text as Augustine with all orthodox Interpreters resolve For his second part of the question Whether Subjects fearing God may not truely and properly be stiled Gods anoynted as well as Kings This Answerer not only denies subjects this title averring that touch not mine anointed not only concerns them not that they cannot enter-common in the title of anoynted but likewise proclaims it to be a turning of Monarchy into a Democracy a making of unctos non unctos a trayterous exposition a dangerous tenet a casting of the Throne into the dunghill c. and no lesse then high treason to call subjects fearing God Gods anoynted ones in a spiritual sense * So the vulgar Latine reads it Yet in the mean time he forgets so much as to mention much lesse to answer those pregnant reasons and Scriptures cited in the Vindication to prove all faithful Christians not only unctos but Christos meos Gods anoynted yea honourd with the very name and title of Christ 1 Cor. 12. 12. Eph. 4. 12. 13. And is this an absolute answer and confutation of that groundlesse Vindication not to answer so much as one text or reason in it or rather a plain confession that the texts and reasons in it are unanswerable because neither answered nor confuted In one word this Answerer in his Margin acknowledgeth That other Saints and servants of God may in a secondary way be said to be anointed And in his text Others may be Uncti not Christi anoynted but not anoynted of the Lord. A pretty Bull and grosse contradiction for Christi and Vncti are one and the same in sence both signifying anointed the one in Greeke the other in Latin whence the vulgar with other Latin Bibles render this text Nolite tangere CHRISTOS meos and Arias Montanus Iunius with many other translate it VNCTOS meos using these two words promiscuously as the very same in sence in substance and differing but in sound And why all true Christians who derive this very name from Christos and are in direct tearms stiled CHRISTOS by the holy Ghost himself 1 Cor 12. 12. Eph. 4. 12 13. may not as properly be termed Christi as Vncti or * Vnctic Christo his quireius sunt communis est quia ejusdem unctionis sum ipsi participes quamobrem nos participatione Christi Christiani dicimur ●…ychus in levitic l. 2. ● 8. Christiani I desire this Answerer to instruct me in his next absolute confutation which I would advise him to anoint and temper Effusione Olei not Effusione vini Infusione cervisiae to use his own distinctions with the spirit and language of sobriety not with the vomit the scurrility of the Tavern and Ale-truth wherewith his whole Answer and Confutation is absolutely defiled not anointed nor confutation at all to any one text or reason in the Vindication and pretermitting in silence above 12 parts thereof if divided into 13. without so much as endeavouring any answer or refutation thereof least he should seem to have lost his Oyle and spoken nothing at all to purpose varnisheth and patcheth up his deformed Bable with sundry rayling invectives against ignorant mechanicke Divines Lay-preachers Shee-divines who had need instruct this learned Doctor in the way and mind of the Lord more perfectly as Aquila and Priscilla two mechanicks did that great Apollos Act. 18. 26. Sectaries Schismaticks c. with many extravagant impertinences concerning the traducing of most vertuous and religious Princes which I pretermit and divers malicious slaunders against the Vindication which because he could not answer he would at least calumniate and traduce with grosse lies and mis-reports I shall instance but in two particulars of many by which you may discerne his detestable forgeries First * See Concil Toletanum 12. Surius Tom. 3. p. 3. 4. he avers that the Vindication buzzeth into the peoples cares that they onely are Gods anoynted none but they and not Kings that the King was not Gods anointed thereby to turn Monarchy into Democracy and expose the sacred persons of Kings to open violence c. Whereupon he takes much superfluous pains to prove Kings Gods anointed when as this false Accuser had not he been wilfully blind or his eyes changed into or closed up with pots of Ale to use his own dialect might have seen the Vindicator there willingly and cordially professe that Kings in sacred Writ are commonly called Gods anointed c. In which regard their persons are sacred and no violence ought to be offered to them especially by their subjects citing sundry texts to prove it Peruse his words and be ashamed of this impudent calumny Secondly he proclaims that it bloweth a Trumpet of sedition and war to work confusion in Church and State Os durum When in verity it wholy tends and earnestly perswades to peace and unity in both and a speedy laying down of all offensive and defensive armes now unhappily raised amongst us After this for want of matter of his own to fill up his empty pages he borrows some passages from Doctor Ferne propounding this case of conscience Whether upon such a supposition as is now frequently proposed the king will not discharge his trust but is seduced to subvert religion laws and liberties and hath raised an army to that purpose the subject to wit by the Parliaments direction and command to preserve the Kingdome and Parliament may take defensive armes to resist their Soveraigne or his plundering Cavaleers I have added some words to state the question fuller Dr. Ferne and he from Ro. 13 1. to 8. resolve expressely that neither in this nor in any other case the subiects ought to resist by force of armes but onely passively by way of disobedience under perill of damnation This question having no relation to the Vindication and tending to the very dissolution of Soveraigney on the one hand and the peoples safety and liberty on the other if not dexterously handled with much caution and moderation I shall here forbeare to discusse it referring those who desire satisfaction how far forth and in what cases it is lawfull for subjects to take up offensive and defensive armes against Princes and Magistrates and in what cases it is unlawfull to Sleidan Hist l. 8. 18. 22. Bishop Bilson his true difference between Christian subjection and unchristian rebellion par 3. p. 510. to 520. David Paraeus his Comentary on Romans 13. Dubium 8. p. 1347 c. and his sons justification thereof to Dr. Willet his sixfold Commentary on Romans 13. Question 16. Controversie 3. p. 588. 589. c. 608. to Richardus Dinothus De bello Civili Gallico religionis causa suscepto in sundry pages especially p. 231. 232 c. 225. to the History of the Angronians in Mr. Foxes Acts and Monuments Edit 1641. vol. 2. p.