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
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

reason of it which they thought visible enough in the force he was under But I will take no advantage of this if he will but remember it when we come to the Case of Iehoiada and Athaliah But the Answer to all this is plain For as Iosephus tells the Story Iaddus never questioned whether it were lawful for him to submit to Alexander when he was coming with a great Force to Ierusalem but his care was how he might atone for his former contumacy by an early submission and the Prayers and Sacrifices he commanded the People to offer were not to beg God's direction whether he should submit to Alexander or not for that he was determined to do but that God would be favourable to his People and deliver them from the imminent danger they were in from a provoked Conquerour and when God is said to appear to him in his Dream he answered no question about the lawfulness of submitting to Alexander but directed him how to do it in such a manner as should prevent the threatned danger that he should appear in his Pontificial Attire in which it seems God himself had formerly appeared to Alexander and promised him success over the Persians by which Alexander knew that he was the Priest of that God to whom he owed his Victories and this made him worship the High Priest and shew all kindness to the Iewish Nation So that Iaddus had no Revelation of the lawfulness of submitting to Alexander nor have we need of any but we have the Judgment of the Convocation upon this which they intended as a common and standing Rule But the great instance our Author depends on and doubts not to carry the Cause by it is the Case of Ioash and Athaliah The Story as it is related by the Convocation is this After the death of Abaziah King of Iudah his Mother Athaliah finding his Children all to be very young kill'd them all but the youngest and reigned by Usurpation six Years over the Land The said youngest Child whose name was Ioash was secretly conveyed away by his Aunt Iehosabeth his Father's Sister and Wife to Iehoiada the High-Priest who kept him so secretly in the Temple as that Athaliah the Usurper could never hear of him Now after the said six Years that Ioash the true and natural Heir apparent to the Crown had been so brought up he the said Iehoiada being the King's Uncle and the chief Head or Prince of his Tribe sent through Iudah for the Levites and chief Fathers both of Iudah and Benjamin to come unto him to Ierusalem who accordingly repairing thither and being made acquainted by him with the Preservation of their Prince as is aforesaid and that it was the Lord's will that he should reign over them they altogether by a Covenant acknowledged their Allegiance unto him as unto their lawful King and so disposed of things as presently after he was Crowned and Anointed which dutiful Office of Subjects being performed they apprehended the Usurper Athaliah and shew her as before it was by the said States resolved In all the Process of which Action nothing was done either by Iehoiada the High-Priest or by the rest of the Princes or People of Iudah and Benjamin which God himself did not require at their hands Ioash their late King's Son being then their only natural Lord and Soveraign although Athaliah kept him six Years from the Possession of his Kingdom This is the Story and their Canon upon it is this If any Man therefore shall affirm either that Athaliah did well in murthering her Son's Children or that Jehoiada and his Wife did amiss in preserving the life of their King Joash or that Athaliah was not a Tyrannical Usurper the right Heir of that Kingdom being alive or that it was neither lawful for Jehoiada and the rest of the Princes and Levites and People to have yielded their Subjection to their lawful King nor having so done and their King being in Possession of his Crown to have joyned together for the overthrowing of Athaliah the Usurper or that Jehoiada the High-Priest was not bound as he was a Priest both to inform the Princes and People of the Lord's Promise that Joash should Reign over them and likewise Anoint him or that this Fact either of the Princes Priests or People was to be held for a lawful Warrant for any afterward either Princes Priests or People to have deposed any of the Kings of Judah who by right of Succession came to their Crowns or to have killed them for any respect whatsoever and to have set another in their places according to their own Choice or that either this Example of Jehoiada or any thing else in the Old Testament did give then to the High-Priest any Authority to Dispute Determine or Iudge whether the Children of the Kings of Judah should either be kept from the Crown because their Fathers were Idolators or being in Possession of it should be deposed from it in that respect or in any other respect whatsoever he doth greatly err I have transcribed this because we must have a little dispute about it and it was fitting the Reader should have both the Story and the Canon before him Our Author ' s Argument from this Story is this It is plain the Convocation does not conceive that the Enjoyment of the Crown with all its Dignities c. is that thorough Settlement to which is due Subjection and Obedience as to God's Authority Athaliah personally enjoyed the Crown with all its Dignities c. and all Places of Trust and Power c. were in her hands and at her disposal and this also for no less a time than six Years and in as full and ample a manner as any Usurper or any rightful King ever enjoyed them but for all that the Convocation is so far from urging Obedience to her as to God's Authority that they expresly justifie the resisting nay the slaying her And this is a clear Demonstration that by a thorough Settlement the Convocation does not mean a full Possession of Power meerly for they say when a Government is fully settled it ought to be obeyed as God's Authority not only for Fear but for Conscience sake But they say also that when Athaliah was fully possessed of the Throne she ought not to be obeyed but to be resisted and slain And the Conclusion from these Premises is That to be fully possessed of the Throne is not of it self to be so throughly settled as to make it God's Authority and Obedience to become a Duty Now it were sufficient here to observe that he has not given the true Notion of a full and settled Possession for he has left out the principal part of it as I state it viz. When the Estates of the Realm and the Great Body of the Nation has submitted to such a Prince Which in the Case of Antiochus is one thing the Convocation expresly makes necessary to a thorough Settlement The Government

of that Tyrant Antiochus being not then either generally received by Submission nor setled by Continuance though I cannot blame him for this because the Author whom he answers took no notice of it but I must blame him for affirming that the Convocation say That when Athaliah was fully possessed of the Throne she ought not to be obeyed but to be resisted and slain for they say no such thing and though he may imagine this to be the Consequence of what they say he ought not therefore to affirm that they said it because he may mistake in his Consequence and that he has done so shall presently appear The Convocation says not one word of the thorough Settlement of Athaliah in the Throne but if we may learn the Sence of the Convocation as this Author concludes we may from what Bishop Buckridge a Member of that Convocation has written in his Defence of Barclay they did not think her settled in the Throne for when Bellarmin had objected the quiet Possession of Athaliah for six Years the Bishop as this Author cites him answers How quiet soever it was it was violent for she was guarded with Souldiers and affirms that Athaliah had not acquired a Right to the Crown I suppose he means only such a Right as a thorough Settlement gives neither by the Consent of the People nor by the Prescription of six Years Six Years were not long enough for a Prescription which he says must be a hundred Years and the Consent of the People it seems she had not and therefore being a meer Usurper and no Queen she might be Deposed And thus his whole Argument is lost And here I must observe that the Bishop allows as the Convocation does that either the Consent of the People or a long Prescription gives a Right that is such a Right as makes Obedience due to Princes thus settled without a legal Title and therefore our Author greatly prevaricates when he pretends to give the Bishop's sence of a thorough Settlement that is when a Right to the Government is acquired by a Prescription and that is a long and uninterrupted Possession joyned with the Consent of the People The Bishop distinguishes between the Consent of the People and a long Prescription and says that either of them will give a Right And our Author though he pretends to give the Bishop's sence makes both of them together necessary to give a Right a long and uninterrupted Possession which is what the Bishop calls Prescription joyned with the Consent of the People so that he leaves out neither and nor as insignificant Particles and likes with better as more agreeable to his Design and at this rate he may make Convocations and Bishops speak his sence when he pleases But to gratifie our Author let us suppose the Convocation did own Athaliah to have been as throughly settled on the Throne as any Usurper can be while the right Heir is living and then the Consequence is That the Convocation teaches that Kings and Queens de Facto who have all the Settlement that can be had without Right may be Deposed and Murthered by their Subjects And will this Author say that this is the Doctrine of the Convocation Do they not expresly warn us against believing any Person who shall affirm 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 It seems then the Convocation made a great difference between the Case of Athaliah and other Kings de Facto who had no better Title nor more thorough Settlement than she had if they thought her settled in the Throne without which Supposition our Author's Argument is lost for they justifie the killing Athaliah and condemn the murder of a King de Facto and this I gave two accounts of in my Case of Allegiance 1. All that this Story amounts to is no more than this That when the legal and rightful Heir is actually possessed of his Throne Subjects may return to their Allegiance and by the Authority of their King prosecute the Usurper for Ioash was first Anointed and Proclaimed before any one stirred a finger against Athaliah now this is a very different Case from raising a Rebellion against a Prince who is in possession of the Throne to restore an Ejected Prince 2. But this was a peculiar Case for God himself had Entailed the Kingdom of Iudah on the Posterity of David and therefore nothing could justifie their Submission to an Usurper when the King's Son was found to whom the Kingdom did belong by a Divine Entail and by this Iehoiada justifies what he did Behold the King's son shall reign as the Lord hath said of the sons of David Now when God has Entailed the Crown by an express Declaration of his Will and Nomination of the Person or Family that shall Reign as it was in the Kingdom of Iudah Subjects are bound to adhere to their Prince of God's chusing when he is known and to persecute all Usurpers to the utmost and never submit to their Government But in other Kingdoms where God makes Kings and Entailes the Crown not by express Nomination but by his Providence the placing a Prince in the Throne and settling him there in the full Administration of the Government is a reason to submit to him as to God's Ordinance This our Author answers with great Triumph in his Postscript p. 4 5. but with how much Reason I shall now examine and I must begin with his Answer to the second This Distinction That God himself had Entailed the Kingdom of Iudah upon David's Posterity he says is not in the Convocation Book and so does not affect their Sence I grant it and therefore did not concern the Convocation-Book in the Story nor make any mention of it but only raised this Objection from the Story and gave that Answer to it by which Iehoiada the High-Priest justified what he did For tho' the Convocation takes notice of this Story yet they neither make nor answer this Objection in direct Terms They had another Design in mentioning it and fitted their Answers wholly to that viz. to prove against the Papists That no Priest in the Old Testament did ever Depose from their Crowns any of their Kings how wicked soever or had any Authority so to do And because this Example of Iehoiada used to be urged by them to this purpose they shew that no such thing can be proved from it But tho' the Convocation does not answer a Question which they never proposed yet this is a good Answer to it and agreeable to the Sence of the Convocation in that place for they take notice that Iehoiada when he had sent to the Levites and chief Fathers both of Judah and Benjamin acquainted them with the Preservation of their Prince and that it was the Lord's will that he should Reign over them which plainly refers to that Divine Entail of the

Crown upon David's Posterity as Iehoiada expresly told them Behold the King's son shall reign as the Lord hath said of the sons of David So that it is evident the Convocation itself answers the Difficulties of this Story by the Divine Entail and it is as true and proper an Answer to that Question Whether we may Murther a King de Facto to place the right Heir on his Throne since Iohoiada anointed Ioash and slew Athaliah To say That the Divine Entail of the Crown made a vast difference between the Case of Athaliah and other Kings de Facto who are settled in their Thrones as it is to that Question Whether the High-Priest have not Authority to Depose one King and set up another since Iehoiada actually did so anointed Ioash and killed Athaliah To say that this was done not by any ordinary Jurisdiction which the High-Priest had over Kings but in Obedience to God who had Entailed the Crown on David's Posterity He proceeds They do no not speak of this when they call Athaliah an Usurper and justifie the Proceedings of Jehoiada and the People against her but the reason they give is general The right Heir of the Kingdom being alive which extends to all Kingdoms that are Entailed and go by Succession This Author who would confine me so strictly to the Sence of the Convocation even where I don't appeal to it makes very bold with the Convocation himself For they do not offer to justifie the Proceedings of Iehoiada and the People against Athaliah by saying That the right Heir of the Kingdom was alive but only prove by this that she was an Usurper who had no legal Right to the Throne the right Heir being living But if our Author will think again I presume he will own that they are two very different Questions Whether such a Prince be an Usurper and whether he may be Deposed and Murthered The Convocation I 'm sure makes them two Questions when they will not allow of the Murder of a King de Facto But on the other hand the Convocation justifies Iehoiada from the express Command of God In all the process of which Action nothing was done either by Jehoiada the High-Priest or by the rest of the Princes and People of Judah and Benjamin which God himself did not require at their hands Joash their late King's Son being then their only natural Lord and Soveraign although Athaliah kept him for six Years from the Possession of his Kingdom How did God himself require this at their hands Was it only by the Principles of Reason and Natural Justice in setting the right Heir upon the Throne No by its being God's Will and God's requiring it at their hands they plainly mean GOD's entailing the Crown upon David's Posterity which made it the Duty of Jehoiada and the rest of the Princes Levites and People to yeild their Subjection to their lawful King and having done so and their King being in possession of the Throne to joyn together for the overthrowing of Athaliah the Usurper and that Jehoiada the High Priest was bound as he was a Priest to inform the Princes and People of the Lord's purpose which can refer only to this Entail that Jehoiada should Reign over them and likewise to Anoint him Which contains a particular Justification of all that was done and all resolved into the Will and Purpose of God that Ioash should Reign which was no otherwise declared but by God's Entailing the Kingdom upon the Posterity of David It was the Duty of Jehoiada and the rest of the Princes c. to yeild Subjection to their lawful King who was Heir by Succession for that they expresly make equivalent in the Kingdom of Iudah to being Elected and Named by God himself Can. 17. p. 28. And therefore Ch. 19. p. 30. affirm That they should receive such Kings as sent to them by God himself which proves that this cannot extend to Heirs meerly by Humane Succession which is not equivalent to God's Nomination Iehoiada sent thro' Judah for the Levites and chief Fathers both of Judah and Benjamin to come to him to Jerusalem Ch. 23. p. 41. and therehe discovers the King's Son to them Thus the Convocation says by the Constitution of that Government it ought to be that the Prince whom God had appointed should be made known to the People and they should chearfully submit to him Ch. 17. p. 27. and they add Afterwards also the like course was held upon the Death of every King to make his Successor known to the People Iehoiada who was High Priest gave this notice to the People and took a Covenant of them and Anointed their King and this also the Convocation says was his Duty As we have said of the People That when the Kings of Judah were to succeed one another their Duty was to come together with Ioy and Gladness to receive them for their Kings as sent to them by God himself and accordingly to submit themselves unto their Authority and Government So at such times the Priests for the most part besides their general Duties as Subjects had some further Service to be then by them performed the parts of which Service are all of them manifest in the Advancement of King Solomon to the Royal Throne of his Father David where the Priests by King David's direction did give Thanks to God and prayer for King Solomon and Zadock the High-Priest did himself Anoint him I suppose our Author may by this time be satisfied that the Convocation resolves all into the Authority of a Divine Entail and makes a great difference between a Divine and Humane Entail He adds And it is plain they thought of no such Difference as to this Matter but that a thorough Settlement of a Government and though attained by the same ill means was the same thing and had God's Authority in Iudah as well as any other Nation as in the instances of the Babylonians Macedonians and Romans whose Government over the Iews was not attained by honester Means than Athaliah's and was as much contrary to the Entail upon David's House as hers and yet they justifie and require Obedience to them but justifie the slaying her And therefore it is plain that by a thorough Settlement they do not mean a full Possession of Power in the Kingdom of Iudah as had the Babylonians Macedonians or Romans nor do they reckon God's Entail upon David's Posterity any ground of difference in this Matter for the Government of Iudah by the Babylonias was as much contrary to that Entail as the Government of Athaliah Now all this is answered in one word from what I have before discoursed The Entail God made upon David's Posterity did always oblige the Iews when they were at their own Choice and had Power enough to take the King on whom God had entailed the Crown which was evidently their Case when Iehoiada anointed Ioash and slew Athaliah but when they were under Force as they were under

according to the directions of this Instrument never could make a National Consent or Submission for they were not chosen according to the ancient Customs and Usages of the Nation nor were they the Representatives of the Nation but only of a prevailing Party and Faction in it for by Article 14. it is provided That all and every Person and Persons who have aided advised assisted or abetted in any War against the Parliament since the first day of Jan. 1641. unless they have been since in the Service of the Parliament and given signal Testimonies of their good Affections thereunto shall be disabled and be uncapable to be elected or to give any Vote in the Election of any Members to serve in the new Parliament or in the three succeeding Triennial Parliaments So that a great part of the Nation were hereby wholly excluded from choosing or being chosen Members of Parliament When they were thus chosen this Election did not make them Parliament-Men unless they were approved of by the major part of the Council to be Persons not disabled but qualified as aforesaid Artic. 21. When they were thus chosen and approved they had no Authority to reject this new Model but it is provided Art 12. That the Persons elected shall not have power to alter the Government as it is hereby setled in one single Person and a Parliament The first Parliament met Sept. 3. 54. and began to be very busie about the new Government but the Protector sent for them to the Painted Chamber and taught them better that the same Government that made them a Parliament made him Protector and that as they are intrusted with some things so is he with other things That there were some thing in the Government fundamental and could not be altered tho this Instrument had no other Authority but his own and his Council of Officers as 1. That the Government should be in one Person and a Parliament and therefore he was sorry to understand that any of them should go about to overthrow what was so setled it seems then this Parliament at the beginning was so far from giving their Submission and Consent that they were about to overthrow this new Settlement and to prevent such great Inconveniences he was necessitated to appoint a Test or Recognition of the Government which was to be signed by them before they went any more into the House and it was this I A. B. do hereby freely promise and engage my self to be true and faithful to the Lord Protector and to the Common-wealth of England Scotland and Ireland and shall not according to the tenor of the Indenture whereby I am returned to serve in this present Parliament propose or give any Consent to alter the Government as it is setled in one single Person and a Parliament That day 130 Members subscribed it and took their Places in the House how many more did afterwards is not said And yet this very Parliament spent near five Months in their debates about the new Government and the Protector was glad to dissolve them at last and this does not look like a National Submission and Consent especially considering the Plot which was ready to break out upon it and the Declaration of the free and well-affected People of England now in Arms against the Tyrant Oliver Cromwell In the second Parliament Sept. 1656. many Persons who were returned by the Country for Members were not admitted into the House as not approved by the Council which occasioned their publishing a Remonstrance subscribed by near one hundred of them the reading of which will satisfie any man how far that new Government was from having a National Consent and Submission But this is enough for my present purpose to shew that those Usurpations were never setled by a National Submission and Consent but all the settlement they had was mere force and now let us hear what our Author says to this As for the Government being frequently changed he says every one of these changes was a settlement if the Dr's notion of a settlement be right but it is plain according to my notion none of them were settlements for none of them had the general Consent and Submission of the People and though the Power of the Nation was for some time in their hands the continuance of none of these changes was long enough to make a Settlement by Prescription without Consent He adds But as the National Consent in Parliament that is indeed part of our Constitution but what is that to Usurpation which may Usurp as well upon all Branches of the Constitution as upon one But I do not urge a National Consent in Parliament considered as part of our Constitution but barely considered as a National Consent for a National Consent and Submission is necessary to the settlement of any new Government and this must be declared by one means or other The Consent of a Parliament freely chosen by the Body of the People must be allowed to be a National Consent and that Consent the present Government has but where there is no Consent in Parliament in a Nation which never gives their consent any other way but by their Representatives when a Government dares not call such a Parliament nor ask their consent or if they do ask are denied it it is evident there is no National Consent What he says indeed is true that had Cromwell possessed himself of the Authority of Kings Lords and Commons had he been setled in this Possession by the general Consent and Submission of the People he had had God's Authority in all those respects and ought to have been obeyed but without such a Consent though the People might for a while have silently submitted to Power they were at liberty to cast off the Yoke when they had power and opportunity to do it This is my Notion of a thorough Settlement to which he appeals and let any Man try whether as he says it will fit Cromwell in all respects just as if it had been made for him viz. When the whole Administration of Government and the whole Power of the Nation is in the hands of the Prince when every thing is done in his Name and by his Authority had I added no more the Author might have pretended that the Government of the Rump-Parliament and of Oliver Cromwell had this Settlement but what follows spoils this Conceit when the Estates of the Realm and the great Body of the Nation has submitted to him So that here was no such Settlement of these Usurpations as could oblige Subjects in Conscience to obey them and to submit to them and when it was not matter of Duty and Conscience to submit I shewed that there were other very great Reasons why they should not submit not such Reasons as ought to have over-ruled their Consciences had it been matter of Duty for there are no such Reasons to be had but such as were very reasonable and