Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	danger_n	king_n	time_n	1,770	5	3.4002	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85885	An exercitation concerning usurped powers: wherein the difference betwixt civill authority and usurpation is stated. That the obedience due to lawfull magistrates, is not owing, or payable, to usurped powers, is maintained. The obligation of oaths, and other sanctions to the former, notwithstanding the antipolitie of the latter is asserted. And the arguments urged on the contrary part in divers late printed discourses are answered. Being modestly, and inoffensively managed: by one studious of truth and peace both in Church and state.	Hollingworth, Richard, 1607-1656.; Gee, Edward, 1613-1660, attributed name.	1650 (1650)	Wing G449; Thomason E585_2	84,100	90

say I shall take notice of when I have layed down mine own sense and Reasons I shall therefore here labour to make good these two things 1. That meer forcible extrusion deprives not any lawfull Magistrate of his right and title to supreame Power 2. That violent possession gives no right to the Seat of Authority and consequently the Subjects allegiance is not turned about by the changes of powerfull possession and dispossession 1. Forcible extrusion or dispossession divests not of Dominion that the state of the Subjects allegiancec should be altered by it First if the vindication or recovery of a Princes or peoples right of Dominion out of which he or they are ejected or excluded be a justifiable ground for his their and others in their behalf leavying and waging war and prosecuting with the sword those that withstand the said recovery then the right of him that is expulsed by force is not cancelled or disanulled The reason of this consequence is of it self evident for nothing can be the ground of a war but a just and reall title either to be defended or recovered but I assume the recovery or redemption of a Princes or peoples right to a Kingdome with-held or wrested from him or them is a just ground of drawing the Sword and commencing a war This is proved if it needeth any proof by the war of the Judges people of Israel against the Kings and Nations that at severall times invaded and ruled over them against whom they rose up and rescued themselves and the Dominion of their Land from them the story of which acts we have in the book of Judges and by the warres of Samuel and Saul against the Philistines recorded in the 1. Book of Samuel as also by Davids warlike undertaking against and suppression of Absolom who had carried away all Israel after him into a Rebellion against David expulsed him out of the Land 2 Sam. 15. c. and 19.9 In like manner by Jehoiada's and the peoples rising in Arms against Athalia the usurping Queen 1 Macca chap. 1. c. in the right of Joash and their suppressing and destroying her and enthroning him by force of Arms. 2 King 11. And by the wars of the Maccabees against Antiochus Epiphanes and his successors g Ioseph de Bell Iudaic. lib. 1. cap. 1. Cron. Carion lib. 2. And the many undoubtedly lawfull wars of other Princes and States in such causes as these which to insist on is superfluous in so clear a matter Secondly If right and title to Soveraignty be not built upon possession but upon the Law of the Land or other consent of the people then it is not lost by dispossession this consequence is founded upon that which a learned Statist h Considerations touching a warre with Spaine written by Francis Lo Ve●ulam c. pa. 3d. saith Is a received maxime almost unshaken and infallible Nihil magis naturae consentaneum est quam ut iisdem modis res dissolvantur quibus constituantur There is nothing more agreeable to nature then that things should be disolved by the same means they are constituted From which he infers very pertinently to our case in hand That if the part of the people or Estate be somewhat in the Election you cannot make them nulloes or ciphers in the prorivation or translation But the right and title of Soveraignty is not built upon possession which the proof of the latter Position will clear but upon the peoples consent which hath gone for so currant an axiome especially of late that it will certainly passe without contradiction Thirdly If a private property be not lost by losse of possession neither or rather much lesse can such a publique property be lost by that means there can be no such difference made betwixt them as to enervate this consequence and however who sees not the incongruitie of this that that which is the conservatory and protection of a private mans property should be of a so much more slipperie tenure then it but a private property is not lost by dispossession if it were for what use serveth the Law or Magistracy one main end of which hath been to vindicate the Subjects right from usurpation or what call you property But he that either hath any or granteth such a thing to be as property will let this assumption passe Fourthly If violent extrusion take away a Soveraignes right then rebellion where it prospers and prevails is no treason for there can be no treason or other crime imputed as against the Crown dignity or authority of them whose right therein is extinct and null so that they are onely according to this opinion traitors or rebels that rise up in Arms and rebellion against the lawfull Power and do not succeed and speed according to their desires By this account treason and rebellion shall consist not in the maliciousnesse of the intent or attempt but in the misfortune of successe or impotency of the prosecution of it Fifthly If force dissolve Magistracy then that prohibition of resistance under pain of damnation Rom. 13.2 is in vain in that it concerns onely them that cannot resist effectually and is no more then if he had said resist not ye that want power to do it lest if ye do ye incur damnation for they that have power and please to use it to the deposing of the Magistrate being that in so doing they put an end to his right how can guilt remain on them 2. Violent intrusion into and possession of the Seat of Authority gives no right to it and consequently neither draws allegiance after it nor evacuates it in relation to another First an unjust action cannot produce or create a right i Non est aequum ut ex actu injusto ius sibi quis acquirat D. Sand. de Iuramenti oblig Praelect 6. Sect. 4. Morall good and evill are at such distance that the one cannot be the cause the other the effect but violent intrusion into Authority is an unjust action Luk. 12.14 Man who made me a Judge c. and that whether it be by one that should be a Subject to that power Rom. 13.2 Whosoever therefore resisteth c. ver 5. Wherefore ye must needs be subject c. Tit. 3.1 1 Pet. 2.13 or by a Forreiner Judg. 11.12.27 2 Chron. 20.10 2ly If violent occupation made a right k O pubes domitura Deos quodcunquaevidetis pugnando dabitur praestat victoria mundum Cl. Claudiani Giganto machia then it were lawfull for any that could make a sufficient strength for it to rise up in Arms invade and seise on any Kingdome or Territory he can prevail over yea to kill and destroy men and Countreys for Empire and Dominion as l Cicero scribens de officiis tertio libro semper Caesarem in ore habuisse Euripidis versus quos sic ipse convertit nam si violandum est ius regnanti gratia violandum est aliis rebus pietatem

ruine of the other and this is incident not from any contrariety or inconsistency that is betwixt them but both because they are distinct and separable things and so cannot alwayes and by the same medium be concurrently prosecuted and because some of them are more worthy then the other which must therefore have the preheminency thus far that if they cannot altogether with my best endeavours be secured I am to prefer the security of the most precious and expose any of the other rather to danger then it As for instance it will I suppose be admitted to be agreeable to the Covenant for the Kingdoms rather to omit the safeguarding of their Liberties and put them to the hazard then the true Religion where both cannot be joyntly put out of danger but all this amounts not to a disobligement from the endevour of preserving them all nor to a liberty upon any emergency of active direct and purposed making away or removing of any of them though under pretence of securing the other I have read of one Alcon who finding his son fast on sleep upon the grasse and a Serpent creeping upon his breast he not apprehending how otherwise it was possible to save his son took his Bowe and shot at the Serpent upon the boyes breast which though to the manifest endangering of his life yet the chose rather to take that course then by suffering the Serpent to leave his life to a more certain destruction and either his art or good hap was such as that he prevented and slew the Serpent and preserved his Son b Ars erat esse patrem●cit ●tura pe●ic ●m Et par●er ●●venem somnoque mort● levavit Manilius li 3. those whom we are bound and most solicitous to preserve we may upon an extreame exigence put in some hazard that we may preserve them but there is a great difference betwixt this and a deliberate purposed declared prosecuting them to destruction 3. But how doth the Remonstrancer prove the Assumption viz The inconsistency pretended betwixt the endevour of the preservation of the Kings person and Authority and the preservation of Religion and liberty thus he saith By reas●n and experience we finde the preservation and defence of his person and Authority to be not safe but full of visible danger if not certainly destructive to religious or publick Interest If the one could be said to be certainly destructive to the other you would have said it without an if not but it seems you have not confidence to assever so much and yet they cannot be purely inconsistent without such a destructivenesse so that your own extenuation sufficiently discovers the weaknes of your proof all that you affirm is That there is no safetie but a full visible danger in the preservation which you impugne 1. The danger you pretend is in the disposall and use of the things to be preserved not in the nature of the things For instance the Kings Authority is politically and morally good the ordinance of God and if well used may be eminently advantagious if evilly used may be dangerous enough to Religion and liberties the like may also be said or the privileges of the Parliament and of the liberties of the Kingdoms in relation to Religion and to each other will you thence infer an inconsistency of these with Religion or a disobligement from the Covenant for preservation and defence of these 2. As there may be danger that way to the things specified so there may be danger and insecurity to the same things on the other hand viz in the destruction of the Kings person suppose it were undone and Authority and let impartiall Reason and Experience judge whether the preservation or destruction thereof hath more danger in it to Religion and the Kingdoms Liberty 3. But seeing there may be some danger on each side and in the preservation of the Kings Authority there is no more pretended but danger and that but of suffering not of sin it is apparent that as there is no such inconsistency as is intimated so the obligation of the Covenant to the preservation of the Kings Authority stands good and our safest way is to avoid the horrid sin and greater danger of Covenant-breaking by standing upon the said preservation 2ly The other thing which the Remonstrance alledgeth and is to be cleared is this Where severall persons joyning to make a Covenant do make a covenanting clause therein to the good or benefit of another person not present no party to the agreement but whom and whose Interest they would willingly provide for as well as for their own to the end be might joyn with them in the agreement and partake the benefit thereof as well as themselves if this absent party when it is tendered to him for his conjunction shall not accept the Agreement but refuse to joyn in and oppose it and begin prosecute and multiply contests with all the Covenanters about the matters contained in it Surely that person in so doing by his once refusing upon a fair and full tender sets the other Covenanters free from any further obligation by vertue of that Covenant as to what concerns his benefit or interest therein Now whether this be not your case c. 1. True indeed a releasement from Covenants and promissory oaths which concern matters betwixt man and man is granted lawfull some wayes But 1. this must be done by the party with whom the Covenant and to whom the Oath is made c Si is cui juratur ratum habuerit iuramentum veli● servari non potest ab alia quacunq tertia persona relaxari ratio est quia nemo potest ius alteri acquisitum nisi ipse consenserit adimere D Saunderson de iuram 1. rom oblig praelect 7. Sect. 8. but as the Remonstrancer acknowledgeth this Covenant was made the King being not present nor a party covenanting or covenanted with but a third person the persons covenanting and covenanted with mutually as by the Introductory part is manifest were the Noblemen Barons Knights c. in the Kingdoms of England Scotland and Ireland it was it may be desired and hoped that the King and his Issue would afterwards approve and joyn in it but the Covenant was actually plighted and therefore did actually binde in every branch of it they not taking it and the parties with whom we covenanted not releasing us the pretended refusall of the King could be no discharge from it 2. A releasement can be made by the party covenanted with and sworn too onely where the Covenant is for the particular and proper interest of that party or so far onely as concerneth him but not to the prejudice of a third parties concernment without his consent d Dico sexto relaxationem partis valere ad vinculum juramenti solvendum quantum ipsius interest non tamen valere in praeiudicium tertiae personae Ratio est quia potest quilibet per actum suum de iure

proprio quantum vult remittere sed non potest quisquam de alieno iure quicquam demere ipso vel inconsulto vel invito si alterius cuiusquam intersit ex aliquo suo iure obligationem non solvi obligatio non solvitur Ibid. but the Covenant even in that part of it was not meerly or chiefly of a private or personall importance to the King himself but was and is of a publick interest to the Covenanters themselves and the Kingdoms the Kings refusall therefore and opposition to it could be no release from it we say on all hands the King is for the Kingdom as the means is for the end We have ten parts in the King said the men of Israel of David and at another time they said and sware Thou shalt no more go out with us to battell that thou quench not the light of Israel What portion have we in David and we have none inheritance in the son of Jesse the ten Tribes said when they made a revolt from and rebelled against Rehoboam The Introduction of the Covenant in laying down the concernments and ends for the making of it expresseth it self thus Having before our eyes the glory of God and the advancement of the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ the honour and happinesse of the Kings Majestie and his posterity and the true publick liberty safety and peace of the Kingdoms wherein every ones private condition is included And a little afterwards We have for the preservation of our selves and our Religion from utter ruine and destruction resolved and determined to enter into a mutuall and solemne League and Covenant c. And Art 6. it styleth its cause This Common cause of Religion liberty and peace of the Kingdoms which cause it saith presently after so much concerneth the glory of God the good of the Kingdoms and honour of the King 2. The King never refused to agree to nor did he oppose the matter of this particular clause as touching this there could be no dissent on his part his prescribing and standing upon the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy wherein this clause is contained his avowing the difference and war on his part to be for the defence of his person and authority his putting forth Oaths to them that adhered to him for the preservation of these makes it as clear as noon-day that he refused and opposed not this branch Now upon this confideration the Remonstrancer hath not onely failed in his allegation but overthrown his own argument he saying in the place before cited Although the Kings refusing sets the Covenanters free from any further obligation by vertue of that Covenant 〈◊〉 to what concerns his interest and benefit therein yet the Covenant as to other matters concerning the right and benefit of the Covenanters one from another stands still obliging and in force I may by the same reason say the Kings refusing the Covenant upon exception against other clauses not this and his opposing other matters in the Covenant not this could not dis-ingage or release the Covenanters from this about which there was not the least dissent or reluctancy but a concurrence full enough on his part so that the Covenant must stand still obliging and in force as to this part 3. If the Kings said refusall and opposition could have discharged us from this member of the Covenant as to his own person and interest in the Authority yet with all your straining you cannot stretch them to our release from preservation and defence of the Kingly Authority in relation to his posterity who were in proximity to him interested in it and for whose interest therein the Covenant was also made e Having before our eyes the honour Happinesse of the Kings Majestie and his posterity and whose refusall of it nor yet a tender of it to them you do not cannot once plead I have done with the wrong glosse of the Remonstrancer endeavouring to impeach the obligation of this clause of the Covenant I finde another a deare friend of his tampering with it also to clude the tye of it and he offers it no lesse violence but in a more unhandsome and grosse manner It is that Polemick or Army-Divine Mr. J.G. in his Defence of the Honourable Sentence c. The man in that book undertaketh and bends his skill to a double unhappie and crosse designe to wit to varnish and guild over that which is very foule and to besmear and obscure that which is very clear In his prosecution of the latter he fals upon this sentence of the Covenant in dealing with which he correspondeth with the Remonstrancer and as this hath challenged to himself a prerogative to enforce men and Magistrates so doth he arrogate to himself to be a bold enforcer of words and Covenants a more strange and presumptuous perverting of plain words I never read nor heard then that which he useth to this clause when he saith page 51. Evident it is that those words in the Covenant in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and liberties of the Kingdoms import a condition to be performed on the Kings part without the performance whereof the Covenant obligeth no man to the preservation or defence of his Person or Authority And this condition he makes to be page 52 53. That he preserve and defend the true Religion and liberties of the Kingdom and of this his paraphrase of the words he saith If this be not the clear meaning and importance of them the Covenant is a Barbarian unto me I understand not the English of it The vast exorbitancy audaciousnesse and impietie of this his wresting and straining of these plain words I leave the Reader to take the measure of I shall onely endeavour to free them from this his distortion 1. Let the words themselves speak they do not say in his preservation and defence c. but in the preservation and defence c. plainly referring to the same preservation and defence of Religion and Liberties which is before promised and sworn in this and the preceding Articles and as evidently referring to the same persons preservation and defence of them here which are to preserve and defend them in the former clauses and which are to preserve and defend the Kings Majesties person and Authority in this viz the Covenanters If the Covenant had intended to pitch the preservation and defence in this clause upon another person or persons as the performers besides those to whom the same actions are referred immediately before it would have pointed them out distinctly but when it expresses no other ordinary construction will attribute them to the parties before nominated and no regular construction can put them upon any other This reading is plain English to him that knows the language and will understand and Mr. G. proves himself a barbarous dealer with the covenant in that he will have it either to admit of his antigramaticall sense or to be a Barbarian

AN EXERCITATION CONCERNING USURPED POWERS WHEREIN The Difference betwixt Civill Authority and Usurpation is stated That the Obedience due to lawfull Magistrates is not owing or payable to USVRPED POWERS is maintained The Obligation of OATHS and other Sanctions to the former notwithstanding the Antipolitie of the latter is Asserted And the Arguments urged on the contrary part in divers late Printed Discourses are Answered Being modestly and inoffensively managed By one studious of Truth and Peace both in Church and State Tyrannus sine titulo ille est qui imperium ad se absque legitimâ ratione rapie huic quisque privatus resistat si possit è medio tollat Vide sacram Theologi per Dudleium Fennetum cap. 13. de pol●t civili pag. 80. Si Invasor impetitum arripuerit neque pactio u●la seq●…ta sic aut fides illi data sed sola vi retineatur possessio à quolibet privato jure potest interfici Grotius de jure pacis ac belli p 86. Luke 21.8 But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions or seditions be not terrified Printed in the Yeer 1650. ●…sper practise and destroy the mightie and holy people Dan. 8.24 25. This Authors zeal for the obligation of solemne Oaths Vows and Covenants may well be born with if it be a fault there is but little too little of it in England But the good man though he sweareth to his own hurt changeth not Psal 15.4 I will say no more but Tolle lege take up and read understand what thou readest Remember and practise what thou understandest to be the will and minde of God and pray for such whether of the Gentry Ministery or others as long and labour for thy information and reformation if thou wandrest and for thy confirmation and consolation if thou walkest aright The God of truth and peace be with thee Amen CHAP. I. Of Vsurpation what it is a Case propounded wherein it is not hard to determine whether Vsurpation be chargeable or not USurpation is an intrusion into the Seat of Authority a presuming to possesse and manage the place power thereof without a lawfull calling right or title thereunto A lawfull call or title to that rule and Government which is supreme of which I have to speak is derived or comes from God There is no power but of God saith the Apostle the powers that be are ordained of God Rom. 13.1 It were a sense too large and not to be defended to take these words absolutely and unlimitedly of all power in regard either of title or measure and use An unjust power in regard of Measure or the stretching of Power beyond its due bounds or the abuse of it is generally denyed to be of God by way of warrant and an unjust power in regard of title or an Authority set up and admitted against or without right God himself denyes to be of him They have set up Kings but not by me they have made Princes and I knew it not saith he Hosea 8.4 Which speech is by the current of a Zanchius Iunius Geneva interpret Pareus Diodate Anotations of Divines in Iocum Expositors applyed to Jeroboam and his successors coming in to be Kings of Israel in that manner as they did For although Jeroboam had a prediction yea suppose it a grant that he should be King of ten Tribes 1 King 11.29 yet the people at Solomons death had no command or direction from God to cast off Rehoboams government and make him their King it was therefore sedition and rebellion in them and both a manifest breach of the fifth Commandment Vide Paraeum in Hos 8.4 and of the positive Law of God Deut. 17.14 15. and Jeroboam was faulty in that though he had Gods preconcession of a Kingdom over ten Tribes yet having had no order from him about the time manner or the particular ten which they should be he did not seek and tarry for a further direction and calling from God as David did in the like case b 2 Sam. 2.1 And although the Lord when it was done testified that the thing was from him c 1 King 12.24 yet we must understand it to have been so by his permissive counsell and generall concourse or providence onely as all actions as they are actions and all events that are evils of punishment and as they are such are though the actors among men that bring them be never so sinfull in them but not by his approbation appointment or constitution the event was from God but not the sinfull means by which it was accomplished he ordered the evil carriage of men to that effect but he gave them no order for that evil carriage so that though in a sense it was of him yet in regard of authorizing it was without and against him and in the Apostles sense none of Gods ordinance But of this we shall have occasion to speak again hereafter God giveth a calling or invests with a right to Soveraignty either immediately by making and declaring the choice and designing the person himself or mediately by committing it to the people to elect and constitute both their form of Government and the persons that are to sway it over them which he hath done to all Nations yet with a reservation to himself of power to interpose with his own immediate designation when he pleaseth and when he doth not so the vote of the people is the voice of God ordinarily and they passing their consent when a Magistrate is to be set over them that power so constituted is of God as his ordinance And this may be the reason why that which in one place is called the ordinance of God is in another called the ordinance of man or an humane creature 1 Pet. 2.13 By the former way the Judges and Kings of Israel had or ought to have had their admission to rule d Deut. 17.14 and that was extraordinary and peculiar to that people the latter is the onely ordinary lawfull and warrantable way of creating a right and title to the helme of Magistracy in other Nations And as in the former the call of God was sometimes personall or of one single person as was that of Moses Joshua Samuel Saul and others and again sometimes lineall or of a whole race as was that of David and his seed e 2 Sam 7.12 So it is in the latter f Prin● 〈◊〉 ●in mu●● appe●unt nec boni ipsi nec boni fine quos repress●● tamen mos sive le● Gentium repagulo duplici Elect onis lu●cessionis c. Iusti Lipsi polit l. 2. c 4. the peoples constitution of their Governors may either be individuall or intransient as in those kingdoms or States which are called in a strict acception Elective or it may be continuated and successive as in those Kingdoms or Principalities which are called hereditary and possessed by descent both wayes Princes are by the peoples Election and Consent and the