Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	day_n	king_n	parliament_n	14,544	5	6.6609	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A70705	The letter which was sent to the author of the doctrine of passive obedience and jure divino disproved, &c. answered and refuted wherein is proved, that monarchy was not originally from God. That kings are not by divine appointment, but that all government proceeds from the people. That the obedience required in Scripture, is to the laws of the land, and no otherwise. That resisting of arbitary power is lawful. That the oath of allegiance to to the late King James was dissolved before the Prince of Orange (our present King) landed. That upon the non-performance of an oath on one side, the other becomes void, is plainly prov'd from several examples in scripture. That protection is the only cause of allegiance, and that obedience or allegiance is due to the present government is proved from Scripture, law and reason; and those texts of scriptures which relate to government, or monarchy, are explained.	True son of the Church of England.; True son of the Church of England. aut; N. N. aut; A. A. aut	1689 (1689)	Wing N45; ESTC R223803	26,704	41

Actions when King ●hey being fresh in every Man's Memory Self-preservation ●s inherent to all Men but it does not follow that a King who has ●enounced his Throne and abandoned the Kingdom should endeavour to re-establish himself through a ●ea of Blood though the Government is provided with ●nother Governour What right hath a King to the Throne ●ut from the People If you can make out your Doctrine of Jure Divino then you may lay Claim to such Rights for your King James as neither the Law or Reason does or can allow 28. That God did originally Institute Monarchy I do say but that we are Commanded to obey Kings exclusively to all other Government doth not follow and I do not maintain If God did Command or Appoint the World to be Governed by Kings and that he hath not revok'd that Decree then it does follow that all other Government is sinful because any thing contrary to the Appointment or Command of God is a Sin. 29 30. We have very little Account of the World from the Creation to the Flood but by what appears we may safely conclude that God then Governed his People by a Paternal Monarchical Authority and afterwards Melchizedeck Abraham and the Patriarchs were great Kings and Princes Moses was King of Jeshurun the Iudges were so many Monarchs for the time being and so all along the Jews were under a Monarchical Government and therefore it was their Fault to desire a King after the manner of the Nations when they already had such a Regal Government as God thought fit to appoint Nimrod is not the first Monarch but the first mighty Hunter or cruel Tyrant we meet with in Scripture but consider I pray whether the Dominion which God gave unto Adam did not make him the first and greatest Monarch upon Earth and if so this makes not a little for the Jure Divino Doctrine which term of Art yet I prosess my self not to be in love with Doth not God himself tell us That by him Kings reign doth he not say of David He hath exalted one chosen out of not by the People doth he not call Cyrus an Heathen King his Anointed and are we not told what horrid Wickedness was committed when there was no King in Israel All these things shew that Monarchy is from God and that there were Kings in the World before Nimrod unless you understand by Kings only such wicked Persons as he was as you seem to do But yet though this be true yet 't is not absolutely necessary that all the World should be Governed by Kings any more than that all Churches should be necessarily governed by Bishops because 't is certain that Episcopacy was Instituted in the Church by our Saviour and his Apostles I never 'till now heard That a Paternal which is a Fatherly Authority was a Kingly Authority It cannot be supposed that Adam was a King upon the Authority which God have him of having Dominion without it be understood over the Fish of the Sea and the Fowl of the Air and the Cattel c. nor because God bid him be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth and subdue it because there was nothing to subdue except Beasts he being the first Man of the Creation It can mean nothing else than that he should have Power or Authority as Father over all his Children and subdue them if they were Rebellious in disobeying his Commands But to proceed After the Flood the Twelve Sons of Jacob were Patriarchs that is chief of the Fathers or chief Head Prince of the Family and such was Abraham who was called a Father not a King of many Countries The Judges were not Monarchs for the time being but Rulers over the People Act. 4.8 With what Face can you assert that the Jews were all along under a Monarchical Government when 't is certain there is not the least Intimation thereof in Scripture Melchisedeck was a Type of Christ being both King and Priest he was King of Righteousness and King of Salem which is King of Peace without Father or Mother having neither beginning of Dayes nor end of Life Heb. 7.2 3. He was a Sovereign King and High Priest of the Church and such was Christ not using Authority like unto worldly Kings Deut. 34.10 speaking of Moses There arose not a Prophet since in Israel whom the Lord knew face to face he being a very Holy Man and such a singular Prophet and whom the Lord had such a respect for that he buried him Himself Ver. 6. therefore it may with Reason be concluded that God gave him an Honour above other Prophets by making him a King and likewise Milchisedeck ●as a Type of Christ But these Kings did not act by their own Will but by the Will and Appointment of Almighty God We read of no other King or Kings over the Children of Israel 'till they desired a King. Isa 44.28 45.1 Thus saith the Lord to his Anointed Cyrus he is my Shepherd and shall perform all my pleasure whose right hand I have holden to subdue Nations before him But doth God call any other Heathen Kings his Anointed of which there was a great Number during the time of the Children of Israel Was not St. Paul by the appointment of the Almighty one of the chief of the Apostles though he had been a violent Persecutor And it may very well be thought that God by a particular Providence caused Cyrus to be made King by whom he design'd to subdue Nations and therefore may be very properly called his Chosen or Anointed for in the first Year of his Reign he made a Decree to build the House of God c. Ezra 5.13 14. I do once more affirm that Nimrod is the first King mentioned in Scripture Gen. 10.9 Deut. 16.18 19. The Children of Israel are commanded to make Judges and Officers throughout their Tribes of which they had Twelve Gen. 49.28 Mat. 19.28 which were Societies And they shall Judge the People with just Judgment not wresting Judgment or respecting Persons This was the Government that God had appointed over the Children of Israel which was by Judges and Prophets not by Kings But suppose these Judges were Kings according to your Assertion it follows that the People have right to Elect their Kings by Divine Appointment This makes not a little against the present pretended Jure Divino Doctrine yet 't is certain that there was many Kings by Divine Appointment in the time of the Children of Israel but that they are so now I do absolutely deny Pray Sir examine this Paragraph well for I do positively charge you with Wresting the Scriptures and making very false Assertions I require you to prove that Kings are by the Command or Appointment of Almighty God which done I 'le prove such Government to be necessary and that all others are sinful 31. Some sort of Allegiance is due to hint from whom we receive Protection that it is the only Foundation of Allegiance I

extreme Necessity why such an Advantage should be denied for the preservation of the Nation But to proceed The Constitution of our Laws is the happiest in the World it having Instituted the Legislative Power in three Heads or Parts of Government that is the King Lords and Commons and that neither one or two of these parts can make or annul a Law is most certain and if either one or two of these parts should assume that Authority that part of the Government or Constitution is dissolved and broken off If I prove King James did take upon him this Authority it will appear he thereby became no Governour or part of the Government Which premised I proceed What could the compleat Legislative Authority done more than in making a Law to annul any Law or Laws of the Land Did not the King take upon him this whole Authority that is to make a Law to dispense with the Laws of the Land And was not its effect accordingly by putting Papists into places of Trust and by setting up Popish Schools and Chappels Monasteries Frieries c What was this but making himself the whole Fountain of the Government when he was but a third part of it in doing of which Act he hath dissolved that part of the Government which related to himself by laying aside his Kingly Authority which is to govern according to the Laws of the Land and Governing by his Absolute Will and Pleasure whereby he ceased to be King upon which the Oath of Allegiance is void as truly and really as if he was actually dead or had signed a Resignation of his Crown because it was taken to him as King ruling according to the Laws of the Land not according to his Will and Pleasure But suppose no Forfeiture could be made for his male Administration If King James has Power to absolve his Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance by resigning up his Crown which is allowed on by all men then the Stipulation which hath been taken does naturally fall by his deserting the Throne ●nd leaving no Commissioner or Commissioners to officiate in ●is stead and throwing away the Seals of England was no●hing less than a publick Resignation of his Throne to the Nation But what can be said for Scotland say some he having a Commissioner there To which I answer That he never was a lawful King there if what they say is true ●hat he never took their Coronation-Oath as well as for his Ruling by and declaring of an Absolute Authority and that the People ought to obey him without reserve But though they obey'd him for the sake of Peace yet it was highly reasonable as well as necessary to throw off this Arbitrary and Unlawful Governour If no Forfeiture could be made as some would insinuate to the World what Anarthy and Confusion by consequence must this Government have run into For if we could only oblige him to promise or swear to govern according to Law and not to commit the like Enormities for the future what would this signifie to a Prince whom no Oath can bind and by the same Rule he has broken one Oath he can break a thousand But suppose he had sworn this and immediately after should have committed all manner of Outrages and Cruelties what must we have done in that case Why we must have made him swear again and again as oft as he shou'd break his Oath But if he had refused to take such an Oath or declared he neither could nor would keep it which is much the same thing as if he had taken it then after having given our selves all this unnecessary trouble we must e'ne have set down and cryed Lord have mercy upon us and expect our deliverance by Miracle though Miracles are ceas'd I say what Destruction and Confusion must we by consequence hereof have run into even to the utter Extirpation of all our Civil Rights and what is most dear to us our Religion and destroying of many thousand Souls which he could not have stuck at for the promoting his Religion by which he is obliged under the pain of Damnation to root out all Heresie and Hereticks for so they call the Protestants if he could not have perverted us by English and Irish or French Souldiers he must have consented to the cutting our Throats or else damn himself by the neglect thereof to prevent the spreading of Heresie by which Act he wou'd have merited Heaven in the highest degree according to the Doctrine of their Church Ah but say some we might have bound up his Hands from breaking of the Laws for the future How absurd is this to talk of binding a King's hands whom no Oath could or can bind and who has declar'd himself Absolute that is above all Laws his Will being his Pleasure his Pleasure his Law Besides all forced Bonds or Contracts are void by the Law as for Example if A. Debtor to B. gives him Bond for so much Money to release him out of Prison 't is of no force he being forced to it in order to get his liberty and that such an Agreement tho' by Lords and Commons in Parliament wou'd not be voluntary but forced is most certain because it wou'd be to get a peaceable Possession of his Throne and therefore it wou'd become ipso facto void to all intents and purposes There cou'd be no other way of binding his Hands than in effect to dethrone him by taking from him the Authority and leaving him only the Title of a King and appointing of a Regent to Execute the Kingly Office for him which he wou'd never have consented to because he wou'd have been nothing but a meer stalking Horse and the result of this Action cou'd have been nothing less than a continued Confusion during his life if not a Civil War for no doubt he wou'd have endeavoured to get a full possession of the Throne and to that end the King of France would have assisted him with Men who with the Male-contents already here wou'd have occasioned a Civil War for we must have defended the Regency I say if the Nation hath Power to take from him his Authority and make him only a Titular King surely they have Authority when an absolute necessity requires such as in our present Circumstances to set up or appoint another King. 17. This Apothegm gives just as much and no more to a Crowned Head as to a private person This Assertion I deny for a private person has no Autho●ity at all but to live according to the Laws whereas a King ●s an Executor of the Laws But you would fain set the King ●bove the Laws though 't is certain the Laws are his Rule ●s well as the People's and he cannot go contrary to them without robbing the People of their Rights 18 19. The eighteenth is much the same with the 4 as also ●ith the 23 and 24 following which yet I shall take notice of ●n their places As to the 19. I answer