A35535:2600
An exposition with practical observations continued upon the thirty second, the thirty third, and…An exposition with practicall observations continued upon the thirty second, the thirty third, and…
An exposition with practical observations continued upon the thirty second, the thirty third, and the thirty fourth chapters of the book of Job being the substance of forty-nine lectures / delivered at Magnus near the Bridge, London, by Joseph Caryl ...An exposition with practicall observations continued upon the thirty second, the thirty third, and the thirty fourth chapters of the booke of Job being the substance of forty-nine lectures / delivered at Magnus neare the Bridge, London, by Joseph Caryl ...
London: printed by M. Simmons, 1661
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
What can be said more unfitly? What greater reproach can be cast upon a King (who ought to be a living Law, a breathing Law, as also the Keeper of the Law by way of conservation and ⟨p. 624⟩protection) then to call him Belial, or one that will not keep the Law at all by way of observation? There are two ways of keeping the Law, First, By Conservation; so Kings preserve the Laws that they may have their free course to others, and be obeyed by others; in which sense Kings are commonly called Keepers of both Tables. Secondly, By observation; and as in the former sense 'tis the prerogative of Kings to be Keepers of the Law, so it is their piety and their goodness to be Keepers of them in the latter. 'Tis possible a King may be a Keeper of the Law by Conservation, and yet not be a Keeper of it by Observation; but then he shines most bright in the sphere of his Royal Sovereignty, when he is every way a keeper of the Law of God, and (so far as they respect himself) of his own.
What can be said more unfitly? What greater reproach can be cast upon a King (who ought to be a living Law, a breathing Law, as also the Keeper of the Law by way of conservation and ⟨p. 624⟩protection) then to call him Belial, or one that will not keep the Law at all by way of observation? There are two wayes of keeping the Law, First, By Conservation; so Kings preserve the Laws that they may have their free course to others, and be obeyed by others; in which sence Kings are commonly called Keepers of both Tables. Secondly, By observation; and as in the former sense 'tis the prerogative of Kings to be Keepers of the Law, so it is their piety and their goodness to be Keepers of them in the latter. 'Tis possible a King may be a Keeper of the Law by Conservation, and yet not be a Keeper of it by Observation; but then he shines most bright in the sphear of his Royal Soveraignty, when he is every way a keeper of the Law of God, and (so far as they respect himself) of his own.
Further, Is it fit to say to a King, Belial? As Belial designs an unprofitable person, a man good for nothing, a man of no use; what? Upon the Throne, and yet of no use to a Nation? How high an indignity is this to Regal dignity? Kings are set up for the greatest use, for the most important services, even for the profit and advantage of mankind, especially of all within their Kingdoms and Dominions; as all are to serve them in their state, so they count it their chiefest honour to advance the peace and profit of all their peaceable and profitable subjects: Therefore nothing can be said more dishonourably to a King then this, Thou art good for nothing, an unprofitable person, Belial. Is it fit to say to a King, Thou art wicked?