Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	end_n	king_n	lord_n	3,565	5	3.6733	3	true

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

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

shew where this is said and cleared I shall then find by what reasons it is maintained and so give you an Answer thereunto In the mean time that which is here but barely affirmed it is sufficient for me to deny If you could clear this the whole question were decided If he ought to give justice he hath a speciall warrant and calling to it and how Force can give such a calling you have not yet aslayed to clear the contrary I have brought many reasons for Chapter 2. and am therefore before hand with you in this point It will be confest that if a man will take upon him to administer judgement he were better or it is a lesse evill in him to do right then wrong therein but of two evils of sin neither is to be admitted 4ly This Doctrine of not acting is the very doctrine of Levelling For when no man may act every man may take freely from his neighbour c. 1. Levelling may be the consequent of non-acting but it cannot be the consequent of it it is the consequence of thei● doings who take away the settled Magistracy 2. Levelling in point of goods you like not it seems but why do you not as well abhor from it in point of Government that 's but levelling the private this is levelling the publick Interest that Levelling can never come in till this Levelling go before and lead the way but who are Levellers this latter and as you see worse way but they that teach or practise the deserting of the lawfu●l establisht Magistrate and the competency yea duty of any that have force to play the Magistrate Hence ariseth that which they cal an interpretative consent of the people because it is supposed every rationall man doth consent that there should be order property and right given under a tyrant rather then all to be under confusion c. 1. Every rationall man consents indeed that there should be order property and right and his being under a tyrant by experience of the want confirms his consent to the necessity thereof but that such things should be maintained magistratically by a tyrant in regard of title you see if all that are your Antagonists in this question be not stark Irrationals some rationall men deny And in this they appear rationall in that they would hear some reason for it before they consent to it Which rather then you will strain yourself to give for truly it is hard to do you choose to suppose them that will not consent without it to be out of the number of rationall men 2ly This shift of an interpretative consent of the people that the Usurper shall administer judgement will not serve you For 1. It will be difficult to finde out and agree when such an interpretative consent is given by the people 2ly What thing is it as near as I can conjecture it is possibly 1. Either that these men shall be the Power or Magistrate and then 1. Either the people had power to give this consent and this makes these men no Usurpers but lawfull Magistrates so puts them out of the compasse of this question 2. Or they had no power being pre-ingaged and then this consent is void and null because it prejudicates anothers right 2. Or it is that these men though they have no consent of theirs to be Magistrates but come in and hold against their wils and by their own meer force and against anothers right yet they shall for present execute judgement because it cannot be had otherwayes This consent suppose it really past by the people cannot bottome their acting or others under them For it is in the essence of it an unlawfull act and therefore of no force It is of the same validity as was that of the people which joyned with Korah and his company who gave consent that though Korah and the rest were no Priests yet they should offer incense or as that would be if the people of a Congregation now that can procure no lawfull Minister should take a private man and say this man is no Minister yet he shall in this defect of one preach and administer the Sacraments to us Such consents are contradictions to the establisht ordinance of God appointing that no stranger to those functions shal execute those acts In like sort it is in this point of Magistracy 5ly How could Ezra and Nehemiah justifie their acting under the Persian Monarch who had no right to the Crown of Judah either by blood or just conquest 1. That the Persian Monarch had not that right you say but prove it not but if just conquest give a title Cyrus the first Persian King justly warred against Balshazer the last Chalcedon Monarch as Historians a Crusus fiducia potentiae inferi bellum Cy●o gerenti justum bellum adversus Tyrannum Babylonicum Chr. Carion li. 2. pag. 69. Balshasar conspicatus Cyri Medorum potentiam coalescere Craesum ad Infringendas eorum vi●es incitat Cluveni Hist li 6. pa. 64. say and therefore justly conquered him and his Empire under which the Jews were then subjected and that by speciall warrant from God Jer. 27.12 to 16.29.1 to 8.21.8 9.38.17 to 21. 2ly But Cyrus had both an indubitable title to that Empire and an unquestionable Commission for what he did in reference to the Jews releasement from captivity and restauration of their Temple Keligion and Civill State and that from God himself by immediate designation Hear what he himself saith in his Proclamation unto which he was stirred up in spirit by the Lord. Thus saith Cyrus King of Persia all the kingdoms of the earth hath the Lord God of heaven given me and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem which is in Judah 2 Chron. 36.22 23. Ezra 1.1 2. And compare this with what the Lord saith not onely of but to this Cyrus Isa 44.28.45.1 2 3 4 5 13. and a clear calling or title to the Empire of the world and to the acting of what he did in reference to Judea will appear to be in him It is conceived that Cyrus had certain knowledge of this Commission recorded and given to him by name in that Prophesie of Isaiah and that by means of Daniel the Prophet b Agnovit hoc ipse Cyrus publico est edicto ad hunc modum testatus Haec dicit R●x Persarum c primo Esdra Musculuin Isaiae 45.1 Cyrus lecto vaticinio Isaiae de se nominatim edito Isa 45. proposuit edictum quo Iudae is in Babylonia captivis reditum in partiam facultatem in staurandi templi concessit Chytraei Chronol in 〈◊〉 Herodat p. 147. Arbitror autem tunc cum rexit Persiam Daniel praesos in Susis fuisse ejus auditorum Cyrum adolescentem ●b eo dediciste veram de Deo de Mossia doctrinam praedictiones Isaiae in qua nomen Cyri expresse positum est Chron Carion li. 2. pa. 69. and that which is