Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	prince_n	state_n	subject_n	1,779	5	6.3897	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64557	The Presbyterians unmask'd, or, Animadversions upon a nonconformist book, called The interest of England in the matter of religion	S. T. (Samuel Thomas), 1627-1693.	1676 (1676)	Wing T973; ESTC R2499	102,965	210

men impowred by them judged it to be at least convenient to take away his life in that way of Trial their murdering of Him in that way was not contrary but agreeable enough to the Solemn League and Covenant Yea to imagine that by that League Scotland was bound to rescue the Kings person from the Parliament of England because of their Voting that no farther application or Addresses should be made to his Majesty under pain of High Treason is called a slandering of the Covenant in that humble Edenburgh-Remonstrance p. 45. Nor is either the Protestation of May 5. 1641. or the Oath of Allegiance or the word of God more wisely or pertinently urged by those London Ministers against those murderers since all those obligations do as much forbid and condemn fighting against the King and dishonouring and dethroning him which Presbyterians were abundantly guilty of as they do putting him to death which the Independents did 't is true but after the Presbyterians had first stript him of his honour and Royal State and so politically killed him All which considered 't is very admirable to me that those Presbyterian Ministers of London especially Mr. Love could so confidently talk thus in vindication of their own Innocency and in opposition to those Independent malefactors as also with what face they could as our Author tells us they did p. 52-62 warn and exhort men to pray for the King that God would restrain the violence of men that they might not dare to draw upon themselves and the Kingdom the bloud of their Soveraign To use his own words Let prudent men weigh things in the balance of reason and tell us whether it were not a piece of practical Non-sence and contradictious hypocrisie for those Priests who had imployed themselves so many years together in cursing those that fought not against the King and blessing those that did to warn and exhort men at last to pray that God would restrain the violence of men and not suffer them to draw upon themselves and the Kingdom the bloud of their Soveraign If they had exhorted men to put up such a petition in the time of the Wars would they not thereby have exposed themselves to the scorn and derision of their Auditors Yea would not their own Lords and Commons have treated them as Incendiaries Malignants evil Instruments or were they so sottish as to imagine that there 's so great difference between a Camp and a Scaffold between an Army of Rebels and a single Executioner that 't was a duty to pray to God to protect the King from the danger of the one but no duty to pray for his safeguard from the assaults of the other Or did they indeed believe if the King had been mortally wounded in the Field at Edge-hill Newbery or Naseby by one or more of the Presbyterian Souldiers that this had not been violence or that the Presbyterian Lords and Commons had not thereby drawn upon themselves and the Kingdom the bloud of their Soveraign I seriously profess that the more narrowly I search into these things the more reason I have to fear what indeed this very Vindication suggests that had the Kings life been taken away either by Presbyterian Armies in the Field the law of the Sword or by order of Presbyterian Judges on a Scaffold the Sword of their Law for the advancement of the Presbyterian Interest they would easily have believed such a manner of death or way of Trial agreeable enough to and consistent with all the obligations here spoken of even the Covenant it self as to which says Price in his Clerico-Classicum p. 27 28. We were bound to preserve and defend the Kings person when we first took this Covenant and at that time you Presbyterian Ministers of London know very well you stirred up the people to fight against his Army though his person was the leader thereof which presumes either 1. That you perswaded the people against the dictates of your own Consciences or 2. That you conceived that though his Person should be smitten into the chambers of Death by those that aid fight against his Army yet they did not break the Covenant If so then there is a case wherein the King's Person may be cut off without breach of Covenant Thus he and appositely enough and therefore I say again Let prudent men weigh things in the balance of Reason Our Author goes on and asks Is there any thing in the nature of Prelacy that frames the mind to obedience and loyalty or is there any thing in the nature of Presbytery that enclines to rebellion and disobedience A. If he means by the nature of Prelacy the principles of Prelatical Protestants and by the nature of Presbytery the principles of Presbyterians I maintain the affirmative in both Questions and suppose I have already abundantly evinc'd it as to Presbyterians both Scotch and English and as for Prelatical Protestants if this Author or any body else can produce any such enormous and seditious principles out of their Writings as I have here quoted out of Presbyterian Authors let those writings by my consent and together with them Mr. Pryn's Soveraign Power of Parliaments by which word Parliaments he means the two Houses without and against the King undergo the same Fate with David Pareus his Commentary and the Presbyterian League and Covenant and if any of their practises have been suitable let those mens persons also have the odious character of Rebellion and Disobedience affixt unto them But that any such Prelatical Protestant can be produced is more than I know or have any reason to believe Certain I am that English protestant Prelatists profess their assent to and practically own those principles mentioned p. 24 25. Which Principles do in their own nature and where they are cordially enbraced frame the minds of English Subjects to obedience and loyalty and therefore let this Author prove if he can that since a Protestant Prelacy was erected among us our Kings have had any such tedious conflicts with Prelates as he says they had in ancient times and for a series of many Ages As for the Popes Prelates they are so near of kin to Presbyterians that 't is no great wonder if they create trouble to Princes If says he Presbytery and Rebellion be connatural how comes it to pass that those States or Kingdoms where it hath been establisht or tolerated have for any time been free from broils and commotions One would think there were a sufficient answer comprehended in the words of the Question For those Presbyterians are rebellious with a witness that will embroil even those States and Kingdoms where their Form of Worship and Polity is either establisht or tolerated and yet the French Protestants are abused by a late Reflecter on the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance if notwithstanding this they are not too prone to Rebellion and that on account of their Principles What an exception says he p. 42. of his Reflexions terrible to

Practice But the latter clause that they teach obedience active in all lawful things and passive in things unlawful enjoyned by the higher power may justly make an impartial Reader that reflects upon their actions for several years together to wonder what this man means by the higher power by things unlawful by obedience active and passive If in the days of the Long Parliament Presbyterian Doctrines and practices in this point were suitable and correspondent the words must be thus paraphrasad Presbyterians taught obedience active in things unlawful enjoyned by the two Houses whom Mr. Herle's as 't is reported seditious invention made only co-ordinate with the King and disobedience active even to bloudy Rebellion in things lawful enjoyned by the King whom by Oath they acknowledged to be the only Supreme Governour of this Kingdom I have read in Philips his Veritas inconcussa p. 23. that in 1642 Presbyterian Pulpits flamed with seditious invectives against the King and incitements to Rebellion and that the people running headlong into it had all manner of countenance and encouragement but those Ministers that preacht obedience and sought to prevent Rebellion were sure to be imprisoned and put out of their places for it Was this for Presbyterians to preach either Faith or Holiness or Obedience active to the King or were those men so good Subjects so good Christians as either actively or passively to obey his Majesty or preach such obedience when they took themselves and exhorted others to take that Solemn League and Covenant which the King in his Proclamation against it calls a Traiterous and Seditious combination against himself and the establisht Religion and Laws of the Kingdom We do therefore says his Majesty strictly charge and command all our loving Subjects of what degree or quality soever upon their Allegiance that they presume not to take the said seditious and traiterous Covenant And we do likewise hereby forbid and inhibit all our Subjects to impose administer or tender the said Covenant as they and every of them will answer the contrary at their utmost and extremest peril What therefore was the taking of this Covenant and tendering of it to others was it obedience either active or passive to the King No but on the contrary 't was active disobedience to his Majesties command and the taking up Arms against the King in prosecution of this Covenant thus taken and cursing those that did not was Treason and Rebellion by the Lawes of the Land and damnable resistance by the Law of Christ And these and other Presbyterian practices were such a palpable contradiction to the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance that in some late reflexions on those Oaths 't is admired with what face presbyterians can now either take or urge them It 's a wonderful mystery p. 41. how it should come to pass that our English Presbyterians c. should especially now of late with so much willingness and greediness themselves swallow these Oaths and so clamorously urge them on others Is it because the Oath of Supremacy has so peculiar a conformity to their principles and that of Allegiance to their practices or that they are so ready and pressing to disclaim and condemn all that themselves have done these last twenty years And a little after Who ever heard or knew to flow from the Tongue or drop from the Pen of a Presbyterian so Christian a Position as is sincerely avouched both by English Protestants and the general body of Roman Catholicks viz. that even in case a Christian or Heathen Prince should make use of his Civil Power to persecute Truth that power ought not upon any pretences to be actively resisted by violence or force of Arms but though they cannot approve they must at least patiently suffer the effects of his mis-used Authority leaving the judgment to God only If this Rector can answer this Question in the affirmative and then prove it true of any one Covenanting Presbyterian Scotch or English within the compass of this last twenty years let him I shall be glad to see it Whether he can do so much or no I doubt as I do likewise whether that Reflecter can prove that that Position as he has worded it is owned by the general body of Roman Catholicks but that he cannot do it of Presbyterians generally or any considerable number of them I am pretty well assured if he can 't will follow that the generality of Presbyterians or a considerable number of them most wretchedly detained that Truth in unrighteousness and for several years together acted most horrid things contrary to their Light Knowledge and Conscience But 't is observable that this crafty Impostor instead of proving that Presbyterians teach obedience active in things lawful and passive in things unlawful enjoyned by the King's Majesty affirms only that they teach such obedience in things enjoyned by the Higher power not telling us whether they mean the higher power de jure or de facto only nor whether their Doctrine will not comprehend the higher power de facto though themselves acknowledge it no power de jure if so be that power will in the main comply with the advancement of the Presbyterian Interest What the presbyterians meant by the higher power in the late divisions was too evident by their practises viz. that parcel minor part of the Long Parliament which favoured Presbytery which opposed the King and made War against him which elected a multitude of new Members by vertue of a counterfeit treasonable Seal Prove that the King was the Higher power in the time of the Divisions says Mr. Baxter Pref. to his Holy Commonwealth p. 23. They declared May 26. 1642. that the Soveraign power resides in both Houses of Parliament as the Author of Veritas Inconcussa quotes them p. 29. who also p. 91. informs us That the Parliament could not be called a Parliament when they had driven away the King who is the Head and Life of it nor they be said to be two Houses of Parliament when there was not at that time when they first raised a War above a third part of the House of Peers nor the half part of the House of Commons remaining in them and what those few did in their absence was either forced by a Faction of their own or a party of Seditious Londoners for indeed the War rightly considered was not betwixt the Parliament and the King but a War made by a Factious and Seditious party of the Parliament against the King and the major part of the Parliament So that a factious seditious part of a parliament was heretofore owned by Presbyterians as the Higher power Nay the chief Presbyterian Advocate was such a learned man such a good Subject and Christian he did so fear God and honour the King as to be able and willing to distinguish between the supreme Governour and the supreme Power of this Nation Sover power of Parl. p. 104. and to teach that the King was indeed the