Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
england_n book_n church_n doctrine_n 5,749 5 6.5670 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A34269 A Confutation of sundry errors in Dr. Sherlock's book concerning allegiance 1691 (1691) Wing C5812; ESTC R20781 14,713 16

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

That Power does not give Right but is a certain sign to us that where God has placed and settled the Power he hath given the Authority therefore my Doctrine is not the same with Hobbism p. 15. Confut Your Doctrine is the very same with Hobbism because you plainly confound Right and Wrong most rightful and most wrongful Monarchs and make them to be equally the Effects of God's Omnipotent Power and Providence which is perfect Hobbism and destructive of True Religion and Morality If God's permission of Might and Power to this or that Man be a certain sign to us that God hath given him Authority and Right then it unavoidably follows that Might and Right are inseparable and then all Murders Treasons Robberies Rapes Sacriledges Injuries Oppressions and unjust Violences are for ever justified and legitimated and there can be no such thing as Good and Evil Right and Wrong Lawful and Unlawful Error 20. The Outrages of Thieves and Pirats are very impertinently alledged in this Cause They have Force and Violence which every Man must submit to when he cannot help it but Sovereign Power is God's Authority though Princes may be advanced to it by no honester Means than Thieves take a Purse or break open my House and take my Mony or Goods p. 34. Confut. Though the Case of an Usurper doth in many things greatly differ from that of Thieves and Pirats yet in this they both agree that neither hath true Right the Divine Providence by permitting the Usurper to be in the Throne gives him no more Right to it than his permitting a common Cut-purse to steal my Mony gives him Right to it As we submit to an High-way Robber because he is too strong for us and we cannot help it so do we to an Usurper For I do not think you can name one M●n truly Loyal that would submit to a manifest Usurper if he could help it And if you suppose the Regnant Prince not to be manifestly an Usurper of necessity he is lawful and rightful Prince before God and all the World For de non apparentibus non existentibus eadem est ratio things not plainly evident are to be esteemed as not at all And this doth principally sway with me as to the present Government The great Law and Rule of Conscience touching Allegiance I take to be this that whoever is in possession of the Crown compleat Allegiance is due to him unless it be plain and evident to each Man's Conscience sincerely studious of his Duty to God and the King that he is an Usurper But that their present Majesties are so is impossible to be proved That an Hereditary Kingdom be governed by a Monarch is from God as Principal and from the People as Instrumental but that it be governed by a notorious Usurper is from Satan and not from God though God doth innocently permit it as he doth all other Sin Error 21. All Kings are equally rightful with respect to God p. 14. Error 22. Nor does it make any difference in this Case to distinguish between what God permits and what he does p. 12. Confut. That all Kings are not equally rightful with respect to God is plain from God's own words They have set up Kings but not by me they have made Princes and I knew it not Hos 8.4 And from this undeniable Truth that God is Author of Just Monarchy but he is not Author of Usurped Monarchy it is contrary to his Holy Nature and to his Holy Law For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in Wickedness Psal 5.4 True it is that God doth innocently permit Usurpation and his Permission is not idle but unsearchably operative but still he is no way Author of it for Usurpation is Sin and God cannot be Author of Sin to think it is Impiety and to speak it is Blasphemy So that all usurping Kings are made by Satan and not by God and every time we say the Lord's Prayer in Faith we do inclusively and by implication pray against usurping Kings Error 23. The distinction then between a King de jure and a King de facto relates only to Humane Laws which bind Subjects but are not the necessary Rules and Measures of Divine Providence p. 14. Confut. It relates to Divine Laws as Principal and Supream and to Humane Laws as Subordinate and Instrumental and all such Humane Laws as are manifestly good just necessary and convenient for the Common Safety and Quiet are in a large sense rather Divine than Humane though in a strict sense they are not Divine The Divine Laws are the necessary Rules and Measures of our Duty but not of God's Providence For he permits all the Sins of Angels and Men contrary to his Holy Laws and yet is no way Author of Sin Error 24. The Doctrine of the Church of England is That usurping Kings after they are once throughly settled in the Throne are to be submitted to as God's Ordinance and compleat Allegiance is to be paid them as invested with God's Authority whatever their Legal Right be For the proof of which I appeal to Bp Overal's convocation-Convocation-Book p 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. Confut. Not to dispute whether Bp Overal's Convocation Book is to be admitted as an authentick and adequate Proof of the Doctrine of the Church of England that Book doth not prove your Point For it proves only this That usurping Kings when once throughly settled in the Throne cease to be Usurpers and become lawful Kings and invested with God's Authority This I grant But doth this Convocation-Book say that there can be a through settlement of Kings in the Throne without Legal Right This it saith not and therefore you greatly err in replying upon that as a Proof which really is none but your own Mistake and Miscollection You your self confess pag. 9. That the foresaid Convocation has not determined when a Government gotten by Usurpation may be said to be throughly settled Now I affirm in contradiction to the Scope and Tenour of your Book that no Government can be thoroughly settled without Legal Right It is very probable that Convocation had in their Eye the two recent Cases of Holland and Scotland 1. As to Holland while the King of Spain denied them to be a free independent and Soveraign State and claimed them as his Right and maintained his Claim by the Sword and refused to treat with them as a Soveraign State the Convocation might probably think that the revolution in Holland was not throughly settled But after King Philip by his Agents condescended to treat with them as a Sovereign State and did so own and admit them it is manifest that from this time they began to be throughly settled and though the begining should be supposed to be by Usurpation yet now it ceased to be so and became a Just Government by the Law of Nations 2. As to Scotland while Mary Queen of Scots was alive though Prisoner in England the Convocation might perhaps