Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	civil_a	law_n	society_n	2,401	5	9.1625	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49115	A full answer to all the popular objections that have yet appear'd, for not taking the oath of allegiance to their present Majesties particularly offer'd to the consideration of all such of the divines of the Church of England (and others) as are yet unsatisfied : shewing, both from Scripture and the laws of the land, the reasonableness thereof, and the ruining consequences, both to the nation and themselves, if not complied with / by a divine of the Church of England, and author of a late treatise entituled, A resolution of certain queries, concerning submission to the present government.	Long, Thomas, 1621-1707.	1689 (1689)	Wing L2967; ESTC R19546	65,688	90

Because if the Imposers had intended to bind to more they might have easily framed the words so as not to be capable of this lower construction 3. Because it is usual for new Governors to abstain from harsh proceedings even against those whom they know to be disaffected to their Government Remissius imperanti melius paretur therefore the Bishops resolution is that when the Imposer chuseth words capable of a double sense it is neither necessary nor expedient that the Promiser do doubt which sense the Imposer doth mean but may in prudence and without violation to his conscience make his advantage of the ambiguity and take it in the laxer sense because since the Faith that is to be given is intended to the behoof of him to whom it is given it concerns him to take care that his meaning be expressed in such words as may manifest his intent which if he neglect the promiser is not bound to lay a greater obligation on himself than he needs to do and though the imposer might intend more under his ambiguous terms yet the promiser is not bound to take notice of it The Reader if concerned may see more in that Case but I think this sufficient and pertinent to the present Case As to the Original of Supreme Power and the Majesty resulting from thence to the person of the King I shall here subjoyn two excellent Discourses of the learned Civilian Pufendorf Of the Original of Supreme Power THat Supreme Empire may have its effect there is required first such natural Strength as may enforce the Subject to obey his Commands and secondly a Title or Authority by which he may enjoyn what is to be done or omitted both these do flow from those Contracts by which Societies are formed for although no man can naturally transfund his strength into another yet that person may possess the strength of others to whose will they are obliged to apply their strength without resistance or disobeying his command and when all do thus submit their wills to the will of one he then hath sufficient power to compel them to Obedience Thus Livy l. 2. c. 59. The Power of Empire consists in the consent of them that are to obey and this Contract gives a clear Title by which the Empire is lawfully constituted by a willing Submission of the Subjects and not by Violence this is the immediate cause from whence Supreme Power as a Moral Quality doth result And evident it is that sound Reason did dictate on the multiplication of Mankind that their Honour Peace and Safety could not subsist without Societies which neither could well be without a Supreme Power Hence it is that the Higher Powers are said to be appointed of God as being the Author of the Law of Nature for not only those things are said to be of God which he doth institute immediately without the intervention of any Humane Act but those also which men by the conduct of right reason as the condition of times and places do require have received in reference to that obligation which lies on them from God 1 Tim. 2.2 That they may lead a quiet and peaceable life c. Hence God in the Scripture approves of Empire as his Institution and by strict Laws establisheth its Sanctity and Veneration Thus Baecler on Grotius l. 1. c. 3. s 6. The Supreme Power is not to be attributed only to the acts of Men but the command of God and the Law of Nature or to such acts of Men as are agreeable to the Law of Nature for he that commanded Society commanded the Order of Society whereof Empire is the soul The true sence whereof is this that the Divine Command doth exert it self by the dictates of Reason whereby Men understood that their peace and welfare which is the end of the Law of Nature cannot subsist without Civil Society nor that without a Supreme Power As to the fifth Commandment injoyning Obedience to Governours that doth not exclude those second Causes by which their Power is produced as the Precept against theft excludes not the Original of Dominion Governours are said to be God's Vicegerents in this sence that because the bare respect of the Law of Nature and its Author did not effect the Peace and Order of Mankind that end is perfected by the efficacy of Civil Empire for that a Society may obtain its end God appointed by the Law of Nature the Order of Commanding and Obeying in which by God's will and the dictates of Nature there must be a Supremacy depending on none but God. But whether this Supremacy should be committed to one or more and by what particular means the state of the Government be constituted this is meerly a Humane act So Grotius l. 1. c. 4. s 7. That men agreed to live in Society not by any express Command of God but of their own accord yet not without the will of God and the dictates of Reason whence arose Civil Power which St. Peter calls the Ordinance of Man 1 Pet. 2.13 Though this might suffice as to the rise of Civil Authority and the Veneration due to it yet some ascribe it to a higher Institution as Hornius de Civit. l. 2. c. 1. That it is so immediately from God that no act of Man contributes to it So that where a free People do choose their King they only design the person on whom there is a Majesty immediately conferred by God as in free Cities the Magistrate is elected by Suffrage of the Chamber but his power derived from the Supreme Governour But this Assertion though it have a fair reception among many doth wholly destroy all the fundamental Laws that are agreed on between the Prince and People for the administration of Government for by this there is a Majesty ascribed only to Kings but denied to free Common-wealths whereas there is the same Supremacy over the Subjects in every Commonwealth Whereas therefore he makes God the only cause of Majesty who immediately on the Election of the People infuseth that Majesty into the King wherein he conceives this Majesty to be a Physical quality as they do who hold that Government is God's Ordinance so intirely that no Creature doth contribute any thing to its Institution which bewrays a gross ignorance of things Moral As for his demand How an extraordinary Splendor should shine forth in him that is advanced to the Throne from an obscure condition unless it came from God let it be considered by them who know not to discern shadows from substances His Argument from God's special Care over Princes proves nothing God having the same care of others and many Kings have perished by Poysons and Treasons His chief Argument is this That seeing neither any individual Person nor the Multitude have this Majesty in themselves they cannot confer it on the King. Ans That a Moral quality such as Empire is may be produced in another by the agreement of them who had it not formally in

of him no Action lying against him 2. Omnipotence having power of Life and Death over all his Subjects whom he might command to serve in his Wars 3. Omniscience by his Intelligence at home and abroad 4. Majesty in that nothing could be taken from him and being an inviolable Majesty 5. Infinity and Ubiquity being present in all his Courts and in all places with all persons 6. Perpetuity in that the King never dies 7. Justice in that the King can do no wrong 8. Perfection in that he is never in Infancy hath no corruption of Bloud but the Crown assoils all Crimes 9. And Truth in that he cannot be estoped or presumed to declare a Falshood 10. And lastly Clemency in dispensing with Laws and pardoning Offenders Nor are some Statesmen much behind Hobs de Cive c. 12. s 1 2. says That the Rules of Good and Evil Just and Unjust Honest and Dishonest are the Civil Laws and therefore whatever the Legislator commands that is to be accounted good what he forbids is to be accounted evil and therefore it is a wicked Speech that Kings are not to be obeyed unless they command just things That before Empires were established there was no such thing as Just or Unjust whose natures are relative to a command and that every action is in its own nature indifferent and that it becomes Just or Unjust is from the Law of the Emperour wherefore those that are Emperours make things Just which they command to be done and those things Unjust which they forbid but private men that would assume to themselves the cognizance of Good and Evil do aspire to be like Kings which cannot consist with the safety of Government Such blasphemous and pestilential Doctrines would confound Heaven and Hell and turn Men into Devils and Order into Confusion The Doctrines of such as Sibthorp and Manwaring on these Principles might deserve to be consured for saying too little rather than too much and Nero Dioclesian and all other Tyrants be justified in all their Cruelties against innocent Christians This were not only to stamp a Divine Character on all Kings but to grant them a Divine Nature whose will is the only Law. Now although these venomous Eructations of an Atheistical Spirit have not poysoned many yet some have been infected by them and the Opinion of an Absolute and Arbitrary Power in the King which the late King challenged to himself prevailed with too many and the many Addresses made to him in compliance therewith and the Doctrine of Non-resistance and Passive Obedience made him presume of effecting that Design the effects whereof were seen and felt in this Nation and had not God in his great Mercy created an unexpected Deliverance for us our condition might by this time have been as deplorable as those of our Neighbouring Nations And now my Bretheren I hope that as none of you can approve of the King of France his Violation of his solemn and repeated Edicts on the behalf of his Protestant Subjects and of the barbarous Cruelty executed on his Loyal and Innocent Subjects to make them Proselites to his own Perswasion so neither can you approve of those Endeavours which tended to the same end which are less justifiable in our Case where the Protestant Religion is established by Law than where Popery was so settled Nor can I blame the Hollanders for shaking off that Iron Yoak which the House of Austria would have rivited on their Necks It will therefore be no disparagment to any person to pursue a melius Inquirendum on those Principles which he hath assumed I know my Bretheren will not account it so in any learned Papist or other Dissenter nor think it a shame to any such if upon better information he should alter his Judgment especially when he shall find that many serious learned and uninterested men do upon very probable Reasons differ from him I have therefore chosen to deal mostly on the Authorities of such Men being prevented by the Learned and Elegant Author of the Case of Allegiance in the Rhetorical and Rational part And having in some haste drawn up my former Treatise I desire the Reader to add these to their proper places And first to qualifie the extravagant Expressions of Finch I oppose the Judgment of Fortescue who fol. 25. says Ad hanc potestatem a populo effluxam Rex habet quo non licet ei alia potestate populo suo dominari principatu namque nedum Regali sed politico populo suo dominatur The King is to Govern his People by no other Power then that which flows from his People i. e. a Political not a Regal Power And p. 32. Ad tutelam legis subditorum Rex erectus est The King is set up for the Safeguard of his Subjects Laws To the Freaks of Hobs the Concessions of King Charles the First in answer to the nineteen Propositions may be a full Answer There being three kinds of Government Absolute Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy and all having particular Conveniencies and Inconveniencies The Experience and Wisdom of your Ancestors hath so moulded this out of a mixture of those as to give this Kingdom the Conveniencies of all three without the Inconveniencies of any one as long as the Ballance hangs even between the three Estates and they run joyntly in their proper Channels The ill of Absolute Monarchy is Tyranny of Aristocracy Faction and Division of Democracy Tumults Violence and Licentiousness The good of Monarchy is Uniting a Nation under one Head the good of Aristocracy is the conjunction of Counsel in the ablest persons for the Publick good the good of Democracy is Liberty and the Courage and Industry which Liberty begets The Lords being trusted with Judicatory Power are an excellent Screen and Bank between the Prince and the People by just Judgment to preserve the Law therefore the Power legally placed in both Houses is more than sufficient to prevent and restrain the Power of Tyranny and the Power of punishing is already in your hands according to Law. That Kings are bound by the Coronation-Oath we have the Acknowledgement of Edward the Third c. 15. declaring thus in Parliament We considering that by the Bond of our Oath we be tied to the Observance and Defence of such Laws c. King James the First speaks to the same purpose as King Charles the First did If says he we take the People as one Body or Mass then as the Head is ordained for the Body and not the Body for the Head so must a Righteous King know himself to be ordained for his People and not his People for him For though a King and his People be Relata yet can he be no King if he want People and Subjects Having met with two Discourses pertinent to the present Occasion in the Writings of Pufendorf a learned Civilian I have thought fit to translate them the Books being rarely in the hands of my Brethren The one describes the Nature of

an Absolute and a Limited Monarchy the other shews what Obedience Subjects owe to such Princes as presume to Govern contrary to the Established Laws Pufendorf Politica Inculpata Printed 1679 p. 107 c. What temperaments ought to be used in Commonwealths and of what force they are will cleerly appear if the difference betwixt an Absolute Empire and that which is Limited by Laws be rightly understood which will be more requisite because of the pernicious Abuse of the word Absolute which not being rightly understood hath given an opportunity to wicked Princes to vex the Common-wealth and to commit many Wickednesses it being easie for Flatterers thereby to blow up the Ambition and other Vices of Princes viz. You are an Absolute Prince therefore you may do what you please oppress your Citizens and Neighbours that you may be called a great Man c. which Inferences seeing the worst of men think to be naturally deduced from that word therefore it is become detestable in free Cities yea some learned men are not ashamed to say that an Absolute Prince may do all that Nero did under the notion of an Absolute Prince Therefore as this is the chief Liberty of particular men that they can dispose of their own things and actions yet within the bounds of Nature and this Liberty agrees with all men that are not subject to another's Empire So when more men unite into a Civil Society it is necessary that this Liberty should exist in them as in a common Subject viz. a Liberty to determine of the means requisite to their own preservation by their own discretion which Liberty as it hath a right annexed to prescribe those means to the Subjects and to compel them to Obedience is called Empire whence in every Government there is an Absolute Empire viz. in Habit though not in Exercise for it is a contradiction to be subject to none and not to have a right to dispose of what is his own Now that Absolute Empire is not in it self unjust or intollerable may easily be known from the end of the Institution of Government for we do not therefore constitute Governments that men may act according to their Wills without regard to the Law of Nature but that provision may be made for the security of each particular by the united strength and wealth of all therefore to Govern Absolutely is nothing else but a power to prescribe to the Subjects such means for procuring the Publick welfare as shall seem to the Governour 's discretion most conducing thereunto and as present occasions may require Because the Judgment of one Man in discerning what is expedient for the Publick safety may be easily deceived and there is not in all men such soundness of mind as to be able to restrain their wills within reason in so great a Power therefore it seemed expedient to many People nor to commit such an Absolute Power to one Man's Judgment subject to Errours and prone to Vices but to prescribe to him a certain form and manner of Administring the Government on the observation of which Form they obliged themselves to obey Nor is there any injury done to Princes by this Limitation of the Empire because they are advanced to that Empire by the Peoples choice for if it seemed grievous to hold a Government and not to have power to Administer it Arbitrarily he might have refused it nor is it consistent with his Obligation upon such acceptance of the Government to endeavour afterwards by Fraud or Force to subvert the prescribed Form. That which some object is very frivolous viz. That whereas Kings are appointed by God who hath commanded them to Govern well to which end a fulness of Power is requisite and therefore it must be presumed that God hath given them a certain measure of Power which neither they ought to suffer nor the People require to be restrained even as a Husband cannot consent that his Wife should usurp a Power over him or prostitute herself Doctus spectare lacunar Doctus ad calices vigilanti stertere naso Now though it be granted that Empires are from God i. e. God hath ordained that Government should be so it is left to the Arbitriment of such Nations to whom God hath not prescribed a particular Form to appoint what Form of Government they approve of As for Example There is no Divine Precept that a free People being about to choose a King should choose a Sigismond rather than a Henry nor is there any particular Form of Government by Divine Right wherefore it is wholly in the will of the People whether they will erect an Absolute or a Limited Empire provided that the Limitations contain nothing impious or contrary to the ends of Government And that you may rightly understand by what kind of promise a Government ceaseth to be Absolute we must consider that a King accepting a Government binds himself to Administer it justly either by a general or special Promise which commonly is confirmed by Oath a general Promise may be either tacite or express a tacite Promise must be understood in the very acceptance of the Government though it be not expressed yet most frequently it is exprest an Oath and solemn Rights being added nor is it unusual in such Promises to describe the Office of a King by enumerating the chief parts viz. to defend the Good to punish the Evil to administer Justice c. Now such Promises no way diminish the Absoluteness of Government the King by them is obliged to Govern Justly but in what manner or what means he shall use is left to his discretion but a special Promise in which both the manner and the means are exprest is two-fold viz. the one binds only the Conscience of the King the other rendereth the Obedience of the Subjects conditional also An Example of the first sort is this If a King promise that he will not commit Offices to a certain sort of people that he will grant to none such priviledges as shall be burdensome to others that he will make no new Laws impose no new Tributes nor use forreign Souldiers When as yet there is no Council established which the King is bound to consult in cases wherein the safety of the Nation the Supreme Law may force him to recede from his promise here the Administration of the Government is restrained to certain Laws and when the King without necessity shall do against the Laws he is guilty of breach of Faith yet the People have no power to refuse the King's Commands or vacate his Acts for if the King say that the safety of the people necessitates him to extraordinary Actions and it must be presumed that he says true the Subjects have nothing to reply seeing they did not reserve to themselves the cognizance of such extraordinary Cases from whence it is clear that a people doth not sufficiently provide for themselves in giving the King a limited Empire unless there be a Council