Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	father_n	son_n	subsist_v	3,592	5	11.9300	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A46818	The prerogative of primogeniture shewing that the right of succession to an hereditary crown, depends not upon grace, religion, &c., but onely upon birth-right and primogeniture, and that the chief cause of all or most rebellions in Christendom, is a fanatical belief that temporal dominion is founded in grace / by David Jenner ...	Jenner, David, d. 1691.	1685 (1685)	Wing J661; ESTC R17940	69,745	218

and Primogeniture was the Lawfull Heir of the Crown after Queen Elizabeth's Decease in case she should dye without Issue of her own Body And therefore an Act passed Declaring two things scil 1. That Queen Elizabeth was by Birth and Primogeniture the Lawfull Heir of the Crown 2. That whomsoever the said Queen and the Laws of the Realm should declare to be by Descent and Primogeniture her Lawfull Heir and Successour That then He or She so declared should be acknowledged and owned for the Right Heir of the Crown it being declared as was said before that He or She was the Right and proper Heir by virtue of Birth Descent and Primogeniture So that the aforementioned Act of Queen Elizabeth does confirm the Right of Succession to the Imperial Crown of Great Britain to be onely by Lawfull Descent and Primogeniture Secondly But farther If the meaning of that Act of Queen Eliz. 13. c. 1. were otherwise than we apprehend it to be Yet it is well known that That Act of Queen Eliz. 13. c. 1. is Obsoleted and out of Date and was made onely for Queen Elizabeth's Reign and therefore is of no force or validity in these our days And that because in this our day the Right Heir to the Crown by Descent and Primogeniture is well known For if he were not well known then pray what need is there of a Bill of Exclusion to barr and preclude the Right Heir from succeeding in the Throne and that onely as is pretended for fear the supposed Right Heir when once got into the Throne should not Govern well From these Arguings it is evident That the above-mentioned Act of Queen Elizabeth is out of Date and does no ways affect these our times in which there is at least there need be no dispute who at present is the Right Heir by Primogeniture And therefore it cannot be ignorance but as we fear right down Prejudice not to call it Malice in them who are knowing in the Law to urge from that Act of Queen Elizabeth's a Lawfulness to hinder by a Bill of Exclusion the Right Heir from Inheriting the Imperial Crown of England which is his undoubted Right by virtue of his lineal Descent and Primogeniture It will not be impertinent here to add the Observation of some judicious Men How that God never blessed either that Family or that People which have unnaturally dis-inherited the Right Heir And it has been observed by many That although the Law of this Our Kingdom does permit Parents to cut off the Entails of their Estates from their Eldest Sons when prodigal and vitious or otherwise Yet it has been observed That those Families which have taken that Liberty which the Law of the Land has given them and therefore have dis-inherited the Right Heir That they never prospered or continued long but by some evil Accident or other they have been blasted in their Estates or Reputations and in few years have dwindled away into nothing And as thus the Curse and Wrath of God has pursued private Families which have dis-inherited the Right Heirs to their Estates So much more exemplarily has the Wrath of Almighty God visited in a direfull manner those Nations and People which have Rebelliously Deposed their Lawfull Kings and have Dis-inherited the Right Heirs to the Crown And We the Inhabitants of Great Britain have had wofull experience of this Truth For who does not Remember those sad Judgments which afflicted this Our Nation upon the Deposition and Murther of the late Pious Martyr King Charles the First and upon the Exclusion of the Right Heir to the Crown even our present Dread Sovereign King Charles the Second And what Shall we ever yield again to them who Plot to bring down the same or worse Judgments upon us by Excluding the next Right Heir to the Crown God forbid But rather seeing We of this Nation are made whole and do enjoy Our privileges and immunities our peace and quietness Let us therefore Sin no more by our Rebellion and Sedition Lest a worse thing come unto us For that wholesome Advice which Christ gave to the Impotent Man in the Gospel is very applicable unto England Behold thou art made whole Sin no more by Deposing or Precluding the Right Heir lest a worse thing come unto thee CHAP. IV. That all Subjects ought actively to Obey their Natural and Lawfull Prince in all things which be not positively against some known Law of God although their said Prince be an Heathen an Idolater and Apostate or never so Morally vitious THE Proposition we shall endeavour to prove 1. By the Law of Nature and of Natural Reason which enacts That the Inferiour shall ever be Obsequious and Obedient to his Superiour 2. By the Authority of Sacred Scripture and Divine Reason which Anathematizes all Rebellion and the Authours of it 3. By the Authority and Practice 1. Of honest Loyal Heathens 2. Of Christians Both Primitive and Modern SECT I. The Duty of Obedience to Superiours whether Morally Good or Bad proved by the Law of Nature and of Natural Reason NAtural Reason dictates this Truth to wit That if a King has a Right to Command and Govern then the Subjects have an indispensable Obligation upon them to Obey for Precept and Obedience are naturally concomitant And as Father and Son so Prince and People are Relatu secundum esse not onely Relatives but also Essential Relatives Aristot Polit. l. 1. c. 8. whose very Essence as such consists in a mutual Relation of the one unto the other So that as no man can be said to be a Father who has no Son so no man can be said to be a King who has no Subjects And as all Sons are either Dutifull or Undutifull So all Subjects are either Obedient or Disobedient And as it is a Breach of the Law of Nature for a Son to be undutifull So it is a Breach of the same Law for a Subject to be disobedient For as the non-performance of the Father's Lawfull Commands renders the Son undutifull So the non-performance of the King 's Lawfull Injunctions speaks the Subject Rebellious And whoever denies Obedience to his King does in effect deny him to be King And this is to be noted That by the Law of Nature All Children are strictly obliged to Obey their Parents whether they be Christians or Infidels Good or Bad For in the point of Filial Obedience no Child ought to Dispute the Faith and Religion the Morality or Immorality of his Parents All that he is to consider is that near that essential Relation in which they stand unto him to wit that they are his Natural Parents And therefore without farther dispute They are to be obeyed And as thus the Son So also the Subject in point of Obedience to his Prince is not to dispute nor question the Virtues or the Vices the Religion or Principles of his Prince But solely to consider that essential and indissoluble Relation in which his Prince

they be evil not onely for Fear but also for Conscience-sake c. Our Saviour Christ himself and his Apostles received many and divers injuries of the unfaithfull and wicked men in Authority yet we never reade that they or any of them caused any Sedition or Rebellion against Authority we reade oft that they patiently suffered all troubles vexations slanders pangs and pains and Death it self obediently without Tumult or Resistence They knew that the Authority of the Powers was God's Ordinance and therefore both in their Words and Deeds they taught ever Obedience to it and never taught nor did the contrary c. We may not obey King Magistrates or any other though they be our own Fathers if they would Command us to doe any thing contrary to God's Commandments Ibid. p. 74. In such a case we ought to say with the Apostle We must rather obey God than Man But nevertheless in that case we may not in any-wise withstand violently or Rebell against Rulers or make any Insurrection Sedition or Tumults either by force of Arms or otherwise against the Anointed of the Lord or any of his Officers But we must in such cases patiently suffer all wrongs and injuries p. 75. referring the judgment of our Cause onely to God And elsewhere our Church says What shall Subjects doe then Serm. against Rebellion 1 Part. shall they obey valiant stout wise and good Princes and condemn disobey and rebell against Children being their Princes or against undiscreet and evil Governours God forbid For what a Perillous thing were it to commit unto the Subjects the judgment which Prince is Wise and Godly and his Government good and which is otherwise as though the Foot must judge of the Head And enterprize very heinous and must needs breed Rebellion Serm. against Wilfull Rebellion 1st Part. p. 279. This is you see the Pious and Loyal Doctrine of the Protestant Church of England which she received from Christ and his Apostles and from the Primitive Christians concerning the Subjects absolute Obedience to Kings and All in Authority whether Good or Evil. And the said Loyal Doctrine was ever preached and practised by the Protestants in England we mean those who owned the King's Supremacy in opposition unto Popery and Fanaticism for there never was nor are any other * Beausrons c. 1. Protestants in the World but such who protest for and defend the King's Supremacy This Doctrine of absolute Obedience was practised as well as preached by the Bishops Martyred in Queen Mary's days and by the most Reverend Jo. Whitgift Archbishop of Canterbury and by the most Reverend William Laud late Archbishop of Canterbury who suffered Death by the late Rebels for nothing more than for maintaining this Primitive Doctrine of absolute Obedience to the King And since it has been urged upon the Peoples practice by several Learned Men of this our Church particularly by Dr. Faulkner in his Christian Loyalty And by the Right Reverend Seth Lord Bishop of Sarum in his most Learned Sermon before the King on Nov. 5.1661 against Resistence of Lawfull Powers Some of his Lordships words are these If harsh Administration of Power will exempt Men from Obedience p. 60. at that time when Claudius or Nero was Roman Emperour why should the Holy Ghost move St. Paul to write to the Romans scil Rom. 13.2 They that resist shall receive to themselves Damnation And p. 67. that other pretence scil That after a Lawfull Sovereign is established Ibid. p. 67 68. the Power still remains in the People in the dissused Body of them or their Representatives to alter the Government as they please it is in respect of Policy and Government what the sin against the Holy Ghost is to Religion it destroys the foundations of the peace and safety of men and makes that to be the Artifice of Man which is the Ordinance of God How much God abhorred this pretence will appear in the case of Corah and his Company The Reverend Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury in his Letter to the late Lord Russel has these expressions to wit That the Christian Religion doth plainly forbid the Resistence of Authority That though our Religion be established by Law yet in the same Law which establishes our Religion it is declared That it is not Lawfull upon any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms c. Besides that there is a particular Law declaring the Power of the Militia to be solely in the King and that ties the hands of Subjects though the Law of Nature and the General Rules of Scripture had left us at liberty which I believe they do not because the Government and Peace of Humane Society could not well subsist upon those Terms As thus these abovementioned Persons so indeed all the learned Men of the Church of England who have wrote any thing largely of the Subjects Duty towards their Prince have unanimously declared contrary to the Factious Authour of Julian the Apostate scil That all Lawfull Kings and their Lawfull Heirs by Primogeniture of what Religion or Manners soever Good or Bad they be ought successively to Reign and Govern and to be honoured and obeyed by all their Subjects either Actively by chearfully doing whatever they shall Command or Passively by humbly and peaceably submitting to whatever punishment their said Princes shall think fit to inflict upon them for not obeying their Royal Commands Actively And if any Prince should after he is seated in the Throne prove Tyrannical we may not Rebell nor plot his Deposition But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazian Orat 1. c. Our onely Remedy is what was Nazianzen's and the Christians in the Reign of Julian the Apostate to wit Prayers Fastings and Tears This was the practice of the Primitive Christians and ever has been the Profession and Practice of the Protestant Church of England And therefore whoever lives in Rebellion against his Lawfull Prince and dies in and for the same without publick and hearty Repentance Acknowledgment and Confession to God and to Man of that his Rebellion or secret plotting of Rebellion Neither does such a man live nor any true way can he be said to dye in Communion with the Protestant Church of England But as he lived So he dies either a Popish or a Fanatick Recusant And No Protestant And thus died most of the late Fanatical Associatours and Rebels inasmuch as most of them died without the least expression of their sorrow and penitence for and without humble and publick Confession of their Horrible Plot and Treason for which they were Condemned As appears by their own Papers given to the Sheriffs and Published by Authority And here it will be requisite that we as far as we are able undeceive the people and tell the Naked Truth to wit That the abovementioned Persons abused the World and imposed upon the ignorant people a notorious falsity when at their Executions they declared they died Protestants and in