Selected quad for the lemma: honour_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
honour_n	custom_n	render_v	tribute_n	3,126	5	11.2636	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64083	Bibliotheca politica: or An enquiry into the ancient constitution of the English government both in respect to the just extent of regal power, and the rights and liberties of the subject. Wherein all the chief arguments, as well against, as for the late revolution, are impartially represented, and considered, in thirteen dialogues. Collected out of the best authors, as well antient as modern. To which is added an alphabetical index to the whole work.; Bibliotheca politica.	Tyrrell, James, 1642-1718.	1694 (1694)	Wing T3582; ESTC P6200	1,210,521	1,073

of Extremity I have already put than to let those who have got the Power over us in their Hands do whatsoever they please with it to our ruine without any controul And also I desire you to consider whether the Fear of such resistance from Subjects when thus outraged and oppress 't may not often be a more Powerful State 's Spell or Charm as you call it to keep the Supream Powers in their Duty than those many Sermons and other Discourses that have been lately preached and publish't that their Power is irresistible and that therefore all their Subjects are bound to endure whatsoever Tyranny they have a mind to exercise upon them In short I absolutely agree with you that as our Saviour never usurpt any Civil Power or Authority and therefore did not new model the Governments of the World so hath he also given Subjects a Right to maintain whatsoever Models or Forms of Government God hath been pleased to establish among them when they are in danger to be altered or invaded either by a Domestick Tyranny or Forreign Force And without this Right of Resistance for you to tell us That Iesus Christ hath given very good Laws and threatned those that break them with Eternal Punishments and that as the Laws and Religion of our Saviour prevail that so the Government of the World will mend without any more ado is altogether as reasonable as to preach that because Christ hath given us good Laws and threatens Everlasting Punishments to those that break them therefore they are sufficient to keep Men from Robbing and Murdering their Neighbours and that all men giving up their Natural Rights of resisting such Robbers and defending themselves against them should wholy relie upon the Effi●acy of the Commandment against Stealing or else on the more Powerful Motive with such People of a Judge and a Gallows should let them do with us what they please whenever we fall under their Power And therefore I desire you would give me some better proofs that our Saviour hath enjoyned all Mankind an absolute Subjection to the Supream Powers under pain of Damnation without any Resistance in any Case whatsoever but I pray pardon this Digression which your own long Preface extorted from me M. I shall not now dispute this matter with you and therefore to observe your Commands I shall begin with that Divine Answer of our Saviour to the Pharisees and Herodians when they consulted together to entangle him in his Talk They came to him with great Ceremony and Address saying Master we know that thou art true and teachest the way of God in Truth neither carest thou for any Man for thou regardest not the Person of Man Tell us therefore what thinkest thou Is it lawful to give Tribute to Caesar or not They thought it impossible that he should give any Answer to this which would not make him obnoxious either to the Roman Emperours if he denied that the Iews might Lawfully pay Tribute to Caesar or to the Pharisees and People if he affirmed that they might for there was a very potent Faction among them who thought it unlawful for the Iews to own the Authority or Usurpations of any Foreign Prince or to pay Tribute to him as to their King They being expresly forbidden by the Law To set a Stranger over them for their King who was not their Brother that is who was not a Natural Iew. And it seems they could not distinguish between their own Voluntary Act in chusing a Stranger for their King which was indeed forbid by their Law and their submitting to a Foreign Prince when they were conquered by him Our Saviour who knew their Wicked Intention in all this that they did not come with an honest Design to be instructed in their Duty but to seek an Advantage against him expresses some Indignation at it Why tempt ye me ye Hypocrites but yet to return them an Answer to their Question he bids them shew him the Tribute Money that is the Money in which they us'd to pay Tribute and enquired whose Image and Superscription it had For Coining of Money was then as certain a mark of Soveraignty as making Laws or the Power of the Sword Well they acknowledge that the Image and Superscription on the Tribute-Money was Caesars upon which he replies Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar 's and unto God the things that are Gods The plain meaning of which Answer is this that since by the very Impression on their Money it is evident that Caesar is the Soveraign Lord they must render unto him all the Rights of Soveraignty among which Tribute is one as St. Paul tells us Render therefore unto all their Dues Tribute to whom Tribute is due Custom to whom Custom Fear to whom Fear Honour to whom Honour Whatever then is due to Soveraign Princes and doth not interfere with their Duty to God that they must give to Caesar who at this time was their Soveraign And tho' our Saviour commands us only in general to render to Caesar the things that are Caesars without telling us what Caesar's things are this is so far from making his Answer Ambiguous and of no use in this present Controversie that it suggests to us three plain and natural Consequences which are sufficient to end this whole dispute First That our Saviour did not intend to make any Alteration in the Rights of Soveraignty but what Rights he found Soveraign Princes possest of he leaves them in the quiet Possession of for had he intended to make any change in this matter he would not have given such a general Rule to render to Caesar the things that are Caesars without specifying what these things are Secondly And therefore he leaves them to the known Laws of the Empire to determine what is Caesars Right What ever is essential to the Notion of Soveraign Power whatever the Laws and Customs of Nations determine to be Caesar's Right that they must render to him for he would make no alteration in this matter So that Subjection to Princes and Non Resistance is as plainly determined by our Saviour in this Law of paying Tribute for Subjection and Non-Resistance is as essential a Right of Soveraign Power and as inseparable from the Notion of it as any thing can be and so it is acknowledged by the Laws and Customs of Nations and is so determin'd by the Apostle St. Paul as I shall shew hereafter Thirdly I observe farther that when our Saviour joyns our Duty to our Prince with our Duty to our God Render to Cae●ar the things that are Caesars and to God the things that are Gods he excepts nothing from Caesars Right which by the Laws of Nations is due to Soveraign Princes but what is a Violation of and an encroachment on God's Right and Soveraignty that is we must pay all that Obedience and Subjection to Princes which is consistent with our Duty to God This is the only

And of this he here gives us several Examples of different customs amongst Nations in making War upon each other according to diverse forms or tacit Agreements whereby War may be managed with a little Cruelty as may be but thus he proceeds These Customs altho' they may seem to contain some Obligation as arising from this sort of Tacit agreement amongst Nations yet if any Prince shall wage a lawful War or neglect them or should do quite contrary to them he would not be guilty of any sin against the Law of Nature but only of a piece of Roughness or Incivility that he did not make War according to those Rules of Honour which are used among them by whom War is looked upon as a liberal Art And a little farther proceeds thus Amongst the principal Heads of the voluntary Law of Nations Grotius reckons the right of Ambassadors where we also suppose that by the very Law of Nature Ambassadors are inviolable even with the Enemy as long as they appear Ambassadors and not Spyes and do not contrive Plots against those to whom they are sent and having shown the necessity of Ambassadors in order to Peace he thus goes on but there are other priviledges Attributed to Ambassadors especially to those who reside in a place rather to fish out the Secrets of another State than for Peace sake those priviledges depend from the meer indulgence of that Prince to whom they are sent and so if it seems good to him may be denied them without the violation of any Right if he will likewise suffer that his own Ambassadors should be Treated in a like manner M. I see whether this Author tends but do not understand what use you ●an make of it to your purpose F. But I will quickly shew you if you please to have a little Patience and therefore to apply what I have now read to the matter in hand in the first place it is apparent from this Author that the Law or Custom of Nations hath no Obligation as such but only as it agreeth with the Law of Nature and the Law of God and what Laws of Nations are founded on the Law of Nature can only be tryed by some rule which certainly is not to be learned from the Knowledge of the Customs or Laws of all Nations since who is able to know them all And therefore these Laws must be tryed either by the natural light of a Man 's own Conscience or else by considering whether this or that practice of a Nation conduces to the Honour or Service of God or the common good and happiness of Mankind and so may be known as well by the unlearned as the learned Now I suppose you will not affirm that this Law of the absolute Property and Dominion of Fathers in and over their Children can be discovered by either of these ways or that a Mans Conscience will tell him that it is his duty to let his Father Kill him or Sell him or use him like a Brute without any contradiction or resistance And as for the other I think I have sufficiently proved that this absolute power which you assert of Fathers over their Children doth not proceed from that great Law of Nature viz. the common good and preservation of Mankind to which the practice of it may prove very destructive which if proved I think I may easily answer all that you have now said about the particular Customs or Laws of diverse Nations concerning this Matter tho' your Instances were many more than they are For in the first place as for those you alledge out of the Scripture they do as I said before only regard th● Municipal Laws of the Iews those of the Romans touching this matter did only concern those Common-wealths whilst they were in being and no other Nations whatsoever and for this opinion I have both Grotius and Pufendrof of my side for the former in the beginning of the Chapter last quoted after having set down the different Powers which Fathers may exercise over their Children according to their different Ages thus affirms as you may here see Whatsoever is beyond these Powers proceeds only from a voluntary Law which is different in diverse places so by the Law which God gave the Iews the Power of the Father over his Son or Daughter to dissolve their Vows was not perpetual but only endured as long as the Children were parts of their Fathers Family And by the same Rule I may add that Children were not reckoned as part of their Fathers Goods and to be sold by him or seized upon by Creditors for his Debts any longer than they continued Members of their Fathers Family and consequently were not seized upon as his Sons but Servants And I desire you to shew me an Example where ever among the Iews the Children after they were Adult and parted from their Fathers House were sold or seized as Slaves for their Fathers Debts And as for the Romans it is plain they acknowledged their Patria Potestas to be in use amongst them neither by the Law of Nature or Nations but only from their own Civil Law as appears by this Title almost at the very beginning of Iustininian's Institutions as I suppose you know better than I Patria Potestas est Juris Civilis Civium Romanorum propria The Text follows in these words as I remember Jus Potestatis quod in liberos habemus proprium est Civium Romanorum nulli enim alii sunt homines qui talem in liberos habeant Potestat●● qualem nos habemus And therefore they would not permit strangers to exercise it over their Children within the City of Rome And if the Power of the Father among the Jews and Romans was not by the Law of Nature or Nations no more could it be so tho' exercised amongst never so many other Nations since if it were one of the Laws or Preceps of Nature it could never have been taken away or restrained by any Civil Law without the express Consents of all Fathers And as for your Instance of Cymon amongst the Athenians it makes nothing to this purpose since if I take it at the worst it maketh no more than that the Athenian Common-wealth dealt very ungratefully and Tyrannically with Miltiades and his Son and it might be that they kept him Prisoner as being Heir to his Fathers Principality in the Thracian Chersonnese out of which they supposed he might pay the Debt as the King with us doth often put an Heir in Prison for his Fathers Debts where he hath Assets by Descent But for all your other Examples unless they have a reason in Nature to support them they will no more prove that by the Law of Nations Fathers should have a Right of Life and Death or of selling their Children than if you should argue from the Common Custom amongst the Lacedemonians the Aborigines in Italy the Inhabitants of the Kingdom of Sophiris as amongst the Indians mentioned by Qu Curtius and

not because he kept a Kingdom bequeathed to him by K. Edward since some Writers relate this King named not him but Harold for his Successor tho' others say that he recommended Edgar to the good will of the English Nobility So that the only true and just cause D. William had of making War upon Harold was his breaking the Promises and Oath he had not long before made him of securing the Kingdom of England for him upon the Death of K. Edward instead of doing which he had seized it for himself and which is worse refused to restore it or so much as to hold it of Duke William as his Homager So that tho' for the strengthning of his own Tide he pretended to the Will or Donation of King Edward and to avoid the envy of the name might out of modesty or to put a better colour upon this matter refuse to take the Title of Conqueror and to insist upon the Donation of K. Edward yet nothing is plainer than that he could claim by no other Title but the Sword and that he looked upon himself as no other than an Absolute Conqueror may appear by these great and evident instances 1. His change of the English Laws and introducing the Norman Customs in their stead and also changing the Tenures of Lands not only of the Layety but also of the Bishops and greater Abbeys 2. By his debarring all those of the English Nation from enjoying any Honour Office or Preferment either in Church or State and also in taking away the Estates of all the Nobility and Gentry not only from those of their Heirs that had been slain in the Battle of Hastings but also of the rest so that they had left them but what they could purchase of those Norman or French Noblemen to whom King Wiiliam had given their Lands as a reward of their good service for the proof of both which Assertions I have so very good authority on my side and that of Writers of or near those times in which these things were done that I think no indifferent man can have any cause to doubt the matter of Fact to have been as I relate it nor did he by any after act ever renounce this right of Conquest as you suppose much less refer it to the Election of the English or Normans since the former were not in a condition to make any farther resistance against him the Clergy and great men of the Kingdom having been forced to submit themselves to him without any other precedent conditions or stipulations than for the saving of their lives and as for the Normans they were his Subjects and they Conquered the Kingdom only for his use and benefit as his Souldiers and Vassal● and it is not likely he would owe the Kingdom which he had thus acquired by the Sword to their Votes or Election neither does any Author that I know of mention any Election before his Coronation when tho' it is true he took such an Oath as you mention yet it was in too general terms to bind him to any observation of the ancient English Laws much less to preserve their Rights and Priviledges farther than he thought fit and therefore could never take the Crown upon your Conditions of Resistance or Forfeiture in case of any alteration in that which you call the Fundamental Constitution This being the true matter of Fact without any disguise it is easie to answer all that you have said against K. William's requiring an Absolute Hereditary Right to the Crown of England for himself and all his descendants by the Sword first then as to the Justice of the War and Conquest it self I suppose you will not deny but that Duke William had a good cause of War against Harold for the breach of his Oath and if so against all that took his part at the Battle of Hastings so that upon the Conquest of Harold and those that were in that Fight he also acquired a Right by Conquest to all that they enjoyed and consequently had a right to Harold's Crown as well as his other Estate as also to the Estates of all those that were either slain or escaped alive from that Battle and not only to these but also to all the Lands of the whole Kingdom since the War was made not only against Harolds Person but against the Kingdom of England the People of which according to their Allegiance assisted him in that War either with Men or Money but admitting the War to have been in it self never so unjust yet all Writers on this Subject even Grotius and Pufendorf agree that Conquest even in an unjust War with a thorough settlement in the Conqueror and his Successors by the non claim dereliction submission or exstinction of the next Heirs of the former Kings together with a long uninterrupted possession beyond all time of memory will confer as good a Title especially when all these confirmed by a constant submission and recognition of the People testified not only at the first Conquest but in all succeeding times by as absolute and unconditioned Oaths of Allegiance as can be invented or that were ever taken to the most Absolute Monarch and such Oaths are always to be interpreted in favour of the Prince to whom they are sworn and as strictly against the People that take them as all Writers also agree now granting this to be the case of K. William the Conqueror that by all or some of these means he acquired a right to the Crown not only for himself but his Heirs this Power was Absolute without any conditions to be observed on their part for the Oath of Allegiance is positive without any condition or restriction so that I can see no manner of pretence that the People of this Nation can have of forcing their K's to the maintenance or observation of those rights and priviledges which they or their Predecessors have so freely granted to them or their Ancestors As Pusendorf whom you now cited very rightly observes and consequently can have no right to repel force by force since our Kings do not now hold their Crown by force or right of Conquest alone but by all things required by the Law of Nations to create a full and absolute right viz. a long uninterrupted Possession and the Absolute submission of the People for themselves and all their descendants so that tho' I grant bare conquest considered as a Force can give no right alone yet it may often be the Mother of Right and may at last grow to a Right by the means I have already mentioned F. Before I reply any thing farther to what you have now said to the matter of Right acquired by your Conqueror and his Heirs pray in the first place prove the matter of Fact to have been as you lay it and therefore produce your quotations from the Authors you mention but first give me leave to tell you that Dr B. and you are the first I have heard to