Selected quad for the lemma: hand_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
hand_n david_n king_n saul_n 6,232 5 10.0779 5 false
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
A56410 An examination of Dr. Sherlock's book entituled, The case of the allegiance due to sovereign powers, stated and resolved, &c. by James Parkinson ... Parkinson, James, 1653-1722. 1691 (1691) Wing P493; ESTC R14794 32,398 38

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

entice men to sin otherwise than by giving Satan permission and leave to tempt and entice them Well then God never sets up Usurpers so as to give them any Authority P. 13. and therefore that is very false which Dr. Sherlock delivers for a certain truth viz. That God never suffers an Aspiring Prince to ascend the Throne but when he thinks fit to make him King for he is not made a King upon his ascending the Throne nor has he any Regal Authority unless the Dr. can prove that barely to ascend the Throne is to be a King And when he can prove that I 'll undertake to make out That to ascend the Temple-Pulpit is to be Master of the Temple and then he must have a care of getting another to preach for him P. 13. But says he unless all Kings are set up by God and invested with his Authority we can never know what Kings have God's Authority who those are whom we mu●t obey out of Conscience and whom we must not obey Which is just as if one should say Unless every one that comes up into the Temple-Pulpit be Master of the Temple one cannot be able to know who is and who is not Master of the Temple One would admire that one who has so good a faculty of explaining Mysteries should not be able to distinguish between a King and a Tyrant nor know the difference between Accepting and Snatching of a Crown Prop. 4. All Kings are equally rightful with respect to God This I utterly deny For God surely sees and knows that one ascends the Throne by Fraud and Perjury and Violence and Oppression and Murther and that another is freely chosen by the Voice of the People for the great esteem they have of his Justice and Valour and other noble Qualities that fit him for the exercise of Sovereign Power Now will any man say that a Holy and Just God makes no distinction between these two Will any man affirm that God puts no difference between one that enters by the Door into the Sheepfold and another that climbs up some other way Between the Shepherd who feeds the Sheep and a Thief or Robber that comes to steal them Men do not judge them to be equally Rightful Kings and yet Men judge by a Rule that God has given them viz. the Rule of right Reason and why should we think that God judges otherwise in this Case than Men do Men who judge thus are not mistaken in their Judgments and I do not see any reason why God who cannot be mistaken should not judge in this Case as Men who are not mistaken do In short If Men who think an Usurper is not a Rightful King be not mistaken it is reasonable to conclude God thinks so too and on the other hand If God thinks an Usurper to be as much a Rightful King as any other methinks this should be a very good Reason for us to think so too For if we think as God thinks we shall not err in our thoughts But how does he prove that all Kings are equally rightful with respect to God Because says he they are plac'd in the Throne by God And are they not plac'd in the Throne by Men is not the hand of Man visible in this matter Nay is not the hand of Man the only visible hand and do not the hands of violent Men set the Crown on the Head of an Usurper and does he think that such a one is with respect to God as Rightful a King as God's Anointed King David was I grant that if God were the only Person that plac'd Princes in the Throne if he did always himself put the Scepter into their hands and by a Voice from Heaven or an express nomination made Kings there would then be no question but all would be equally Rightful Kings though not equally good ones As Saul's Title was as good as that of David though he was not so good a King But since Men are concern'd in advancing Princes to the Throne and they may and do often by unjust means place them thereon to say that all Kings are equally Rightful with respect to God is to say that God has no regard to the sinful Means that are us'd to set up such Kings it is to confound the Notions of Good and Evil of Right and Wrong and to turn the World into a mere Bedlam Add to this That if all Kings were equally Rightful with respect to God then why should he complain as he did They have set up Kings but not by me Hos 8.4 they have made Princes and I knew it not Since if what this Author affirms be true God himself set up the Kings which they set up and made the Princes which they made and did as truly make them As if they had been expresly nominated and anointed by a Prophet at God's Command as Saul and David were P. 13. To conclude this Head If all Princes when they are advanced to the Throne by what means soever they are lifted up above their Brethren be equally Rightful Kings then surely they have equally a Commission from God to act as Kings but Usurpers have no Commission at all from God to rule his people they have no Authority and they can have none unless God's word has lost its Authority for I 'm sure that forbids all unjust Usurpations and thereby plainly tells us That Usurpers have no Authority unless God should give them Authority to do what he in his Word has forbidden which I hope the Doctor will not affirm Prop. 5. The distinction then between a King de Jure and a King de Facto relates only to Humane Laws c. If by a King de Facto he means as it is plain he does an Usurper and by a King de Jure a Rightul King I grant that if the foregoing Proposition were true this would be true too for if all Kings be equally Rightfu with respect to God then all Kings are Kings de Jure with respect to God and consequently as he says the distinction of a King de Jure and de Facto would relate only to Humane Laws So that here is nothing else asserted in this Proposition but what was in the former Only I must tell him what I have observ'd already That this distinction is not to be allowed with respect to Humane Laws for in England whoever is a King de Facto is also a King de Jure for he has a right to our Allegiance Prop. 6. We can have but one King at a time I 'll give him this and I hope King William is the Doctor 's King Prop. 7. He is our King who is setled in the Throne in the actual Administration of Sovereign Power c. If he means by setled legally setled I agree with him otherwise I deny it For I know of no other Settlement but a Legal one that can make a King A Settlement without Law which the Doctor speaks of is