Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	david_n	king_n	people_n	14,785	5	5.1891	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A27390	Constantius the Apostate being a short account of his life and the sense of the primitive Christians about his succession and their behaviour toward him : wherein is shown the unlawfulness of excluding the next heir upon the account of religion, and the necessity of passive obedience, as well to the unlawfull oppressour, as the legal persecutour : being a full answer to a late pamphlet intituled Julian the Apostate, &c.	Bennet, John, d. 1686.	1683 (1683)	Wing B1884; ESTC R24199	39,779	97

have been contrary to the Law of Nature may be gather'd from what Mr. Johnson says of his Title to the Crown p. 19. viz. that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that destroying this must needs be a great breach of the Law of Nature which cannot be allowable upon any Consideration for a Heathen will tell us Nec derogari aliquid ex hâc lege naturae licet neque tota abrogari potest neque verò per Senatum aut per populum solvi hâc lege possumus nec est quaerendus interpres aut explanator ejus alius nec erit alia l●x Romae alia Athenis alia nunc alia posthac sed omnes gentes omni tempore una lex sempiterna immortalis continebit unusque erit communis quasi magister imperator omnium Deus ille legis hujus inventor disceptator lator cui qui non parebit ipse se fugiet naturam hominis aspernabitur atque hoc ipso luet maximas poenas etiamsi caetera supplicia quae putantur effugerit This is quoted Lact. 6. Inst. 8. out of Cic. Books de Repub. that are lost If this be true which I am sure no man of common knowledge will deny what becomes of the lawfulness of Excluding Julian 'T would have been equally as just to have prevented his Succession hy death as any other means for any thing tending to this had been a breach of the Law of Nature and would onely differ from the former as robbing a man doth from cutting his Throat 2. That such an attempt is contrary to the reveal'd Law of God may necessarily be infer'd from the exact agreement there is between the Scriptures and the Law of Nature This being onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 legis illius architypae aeternae quae est immensè divina and those his reveal'd will but 't is expresly set down in Scripture that the Right of Succession is entail'd on Primogeniture for Gen. 49. 3. when Jacob blessed his sons he call'd Reuben his first-born the Excellency of dignity and the Excellency of power and in 2 Chron. 21. 3. 't is said that Jehoram succeeded Jehosaphat because he was the first-born I might fill my Margin with quotations to this purpose but I shall onely add that great instance of the Right of Primogeniture Gen. 4. 7. where God tells Cain of his younger brother Abel Unto thee shall be his desire and thou shalt rule over him which are the very words which God spake Chap. 3. v. 16. when he gave the man dominion over the woman Now that this right extends to proximity of blood no body questions so that unless we have some warrant from Scripture to res●ind this title it is the highest sacrilege imaginable to attempt it and I challenge all the world to shew where that warrant is God himself indeed may dispose of the right that he first gave but I would fain know what people could ever lawfully pretend to alter the Succession without an express warrant from God David I confess made Solomon King but he declares 't was by God's immediate ●ppointment and of all my sons for the Lord hath given me many sons he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the Throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel 1 Chron. 28. 5. Now I shall readily grant the Authour of Julian's friends Enthusiasts but I can hardly admit they have a particular revelation for what they would now be at and without this I think the Exclusion of the Next Heir utterly unlawfull And that this was the sense of the first Christians will be evident from the Apology of Athenagoras to M. Aurelius and his son Commodus where having declar'd the Christians were of all others most piously inclin'd toward God and their Empire he concludes with this profession We pray for your Empire that the Son as it is most fit may in the Kingdom succeed the Father and that your Empire may encrease and flourish all being made subject to you which would be much for our good that we leading a quiet and peaceable life may readily obey you in all your Commands I think nothing can be fuller than this to prove what I design'd for that in these words he declar'd the sense of the Church we must necessarily grant if we consider what his Character then was when he spake them Athe. Legat. pro Christ. But to come nigher to the business in hand the Primitive Christians did know Julian's Apostacy before Constantius died For as soon as ever he was declar'd Emperour by the Souldiers he laid by all pretence to Christianity for going through every City he open'd the Temples and call'd himself the High Priest Soz. So that like Mr. Johnson he did not lay by the name of Priest though he turn'd Apostate Now that the Army should be ignorant of what Julian did so publickly in the face of the Sun is not to be imagin'd especially if Constantius himself knew it which Mr. Johnson would have us believe from the passage he cites from Gregory Naz. that Constantius repented his declaring Julian his Successour which could onely be upon the account of his Apostacy so that he must needs know it But if we give any credit to Marcellinus whose authority I am sure Mr. Johnson seems much to value if Constantius did know that Julian was a Pagan it was impossible he should repent of his leaving him his Successour for he tells us l. 21. that upon his falling sick he did in his right understanding integro sensu nominate Julian his heir and l. 22. with his last breath supremâ voce pronounc'd hi● Emperour Now that he spoke or shew'd any signs of his repentance after his death Mr. Johnson will hardly allow because that looks too like a Popish Miracle I am rather inclin'd to believe that Constantius thought the Right of Succession was so inviolable that the highest provocation imaginable ought not to prevail with him to alter it for else why did he not endeavour to exclude him when he had been guilty of the highest ingratitude in procuring himself to be declar'd Emperour by the Army and af●erwards in justifying his title by an open rebellion It had certainly been but justice to have proceeded with the greatest rigour against him for so insolent an Vsurpation But alas he knew his Edicts in this case would be superseded by a greater Law and that they would be of little force against that title from which he first deriv'd the power to make them I hope this is a sufficient answer to the second Chapter wherein Mr. Johnson pretends to shew the sense of the Primitive Christians about Julian's Succession but makes one man's opinion the sense of the whole Church and takes that opinion too of his from his Invectives this is so dis-ingenuous it could never be excus'd but that the badness of the cause he is engag'd in can find nothing else to support it As to the fourth Position