Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	humane_a	law_n	positive_a	2,470	5	10.9031	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A55100	A Plea for liberty in vindication of the commonvvealth of England wherein is demonstrated from Scripture and reason together with the consent of the chiefest polititians, statists, lawyers, warriours, oratours, historians, philosophs and the example of the chiefest republicks, a commonwealth of all politick states to be the best, against Salmasius and others / by a friend to freedome.	Pierson, David.	1655 (1655)	Wing P2510; ESTC R2913	187,096	198

pleasure excluding all formal and physical necessity from Nature And not only so but also it followeth that both Rulers and ruled are eternal and unchangeable Which is repugnant both to Experience and Reason The Gymnosophists and Indian Philosophs did enact it by Law That all by Nature were free-born and none were servants but to be of equal authority and alike dignity Diod. Ant. lib. 3. cap. 10. Dionysius Halicarnassius saith In all men the desire of liberty is innate Lib. 5. 6. Julius Caesar averreth All men study to liberty Lib. 2. 3. de bel Gal. And Gregory affirmeth All men by Nature to be free whom Nations have subjected to bondage 12. quaest 2. The Law speaketh much for us in this and in positive terms saith what we affirm L. manumiss F. de just jur Lib. 1. digest tit 1. lib. 1. Inst tit 5. Ulpian Justian distinguish between the Law of Nature and the Law of Nations The one is particular only relating to man the other is general relative both to man and beast Ulp. lib. 1. sect ult Just dig lib. 1. tit 1. Inst lib. 1. tit 2. But I pray you Wherein can the Law of Nature be common both to man and beast if you affirm Nature to have laid strait bonds of subjection upon one to another We find by experience that Lions are not subject to King-Lion Boars to King-Boar Eagles to King-Eagle And so you annul this community of the Law of Nature to Man and Beast if you understand subjective authority formally to flow from Nature They do as yet more clearly difference these Laws calling the one slavery and the other liberty Ulp. lib. man D. Just dig lib. 1. Hence Ulpian Inst lib. 1. and Justinian Dig. lib. 1. say That all by Nature being free-born Manumission to Nature is unknown It is the consequent of servitude according to the Law of Nations See also Just Inst lib. 1. tit 5. Whence is it out of Florentine he defineth liberty from Nature and servitude from the custom of Nations Dig. lib. 1. tit 5. Where liberty is expresly opposed to Government and Authority The one is called humane constitution and the other Nature's birth But the Lawyer Prate would make us beleeve by the Law of Nations Ulpian and Justinian do understand a humane universal Law and Sanction and by servitude praedure and tyrannous form of Government And so saith he the Law of Nations must not alwaies be opposed to the Law of Nature as Livius saith Neither must we think saith he that all Civil Constitution is contrary to Nature but such as draweth the subjected into slavery The Lawyer Baldwin seemeth to take him by the hand while as he calleth the Law of Nations the particular Law of Nature But the man com in Justit Inst lib. 1. 2. seemeth neither to be much for it nor much against it Nay but Mr. Prate wresteth Ulpian and Justinian their meaning for if the Law of Nature were taken by them for any humane Law then should humane Law be common both to man and beast Do not they say the Law of Nature is common to both Therefore you shall either conclude beasts to be men and affected with humane faculties or else you shall restrict your universal within the bounds of a particular But if you shall say That by the Law of Nations they understand an Universal Statute and general Sanction as it is contradistinct from the Civil Law you also gain just nothing for your pains 1. Because in such a notion the Law of Nations is not the proper and immediat opposit of the Law of Nature So it is properly and immediatly opposed to the Civil Law as Justinian out of Caius abundantly cleareth for as he opposeth Digest lib. 1. tit 1. loc 1. the Law of Nature to the Law of Nations so loc 9. and Inst. lib. 1. tit 2. loc 2. he contradistinguisheth the Law of Nations from the Civil Law In the one he taketh the Law of Nations as being the immediate opposit of the Law of Nature and in the other as being the proper opposit of the Civil Law 2. Because both Ulpian and Justinian in the forequoted places do call the Law of Nations a thing common amongst men But by your leave if we take a narrow view of the Law of Nations we shall find it rather particular then general it being taken as immediatly opposed to the Civil Law for so it is taken in a strict and rigorous acceptation And such Law hath greatest footing when Monarchy and the governing power is universal And whereas Mr. Prate alleadgeth That by servitude is understood slavery and tyranny he is far in the wrong to Ulpian and Justinian They mean no such thing 1. Because Justinian calleth Liberty a natural faculty enclining to that which any man pleaseth to do unlesse it be obstructed either by strength or Law In which we mark two things that make much for us Firstly Liberty is referred to the natural faculty of the Will So Aristotle defineth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 6. Polit. Now no Government can be called the natural faculty of the Will or any power of the Mind Secondly Liberty is opposed not only to force and violence but also to Law and Ordinance These two things do absolutely distinguish the reason of Liberty from Government in so far as it is taken for natural liberty Now Justinian to the definition of Liberty subjoyneth the definition of Servitude But by your favour why may not I with far better reason say That Justinian taketh Servitude for Government then you can alleadge him to take it for slavery and tyrannous authority for as he defineth Liberty it is uncompetent both to lawful and unlawful authority If Government be natural the Liberty of which Justinian speaketh is no waies competent to it He speaketh not of natural but of morall liberty 2. Because Ulpian and Justinian call Servitude constitutio juris gentium But my friend what Ethnick much lesse Christian would have called tyranny constitutio juris and not rather constitutio non-juris Shew me another place where they take jus gentium abusively in a catachrestick signification 3. Albeit we should yeeld this to Mr. Prate yet should he no whit encroach upon the main purpose in hand for it is abundantly cleared that they understand all men by nature to be born free Jure enim naturali saith Justinian omnes homines ab initio liberi nascebantur Just lib. 1. tit 2. loc 2. Thence was it in the golden age both before and after the Flood they knew nothing but fatherly government and filiall subjection Jerome also in this sideth with us He calleth Liberty a faculty of living according to pleasure But as government restraineth the Will so Nature giveth it liberty sweetly concurring and conniving with it Furthermore he sheweth how that Liberty is naturall both from the subject and object of it De Reg. inst disc lib. 5. Conclus 2. Nature per

accidens and in a secondary way intendeth government The reason of this is clearer then the light for in the state of corruption Nature lieth between two straits Either it must be altogether be slave●●o the predominant tyranny of it's corruption or else patiently submit it-self to Government 's yoke Thereby it mindeth to redintegrat that which by Corruption it losed It knoweth that it would be overcharged by the super-dominion of lording lusts if it did not come under the reverence of government It chooseth rather to take it's hazard of subjection to a friend then become captive to a foe and alwayes remain his prisoner Thus it no otherwise mindeth government but as in the case of fallen man it cannot be secure nor preserved from the rage of lust without it Therefore Writers do very pertinently call it naturall Arist Pol. 1. cap. 2. Ulp. Inst lib. 1. Just Dig. lib. 1. tit 1. loc 1. 3 4 5 6 7 9. Inst lib. 1. tit 2. loc 1. and 2. And the Lawyer Vasquez in plain terms saith that same which we do Illustr quaest lib. 1. cap. 41. The Law saith De jure gentium secundarius est omnis principatus I. fin ad med C. de long temp praest I. This being done you may abundantly learn herefrom what man's condition is in the state of perfection 〈◊〉 integrity 'T is a condition altogether unliable to any Politick subjection It rendereth all free unsubjected to government Yet we must not think that it giveth man immunity and exemption from the Morall Law That were a giving him power above his duty Thus he should be rendered an out-law But in the state of integrity man was most strictly engaged to all the duties of the Morall Law He was obliged to perform them under pain of highest censure He was answerable then to no humane Judicatory but only to the Judge of judges His case was such that he needed no governours to hedge-in his ways He needed nothing for that but his own nature It 's integrity and perfection was the best governor and government But since the fall Man is become exceeding labill and standeth in need of many things which he did not before Since the fall he is obliged no lesse then before it to observe GOD's Law And though before the fall he was free and subject to none but to GOD yet now he cometh under Tutory Before the fall he needed no Tutors having wit enough then to govern himself But since the fall he is become infirm and ignorant and standeth now in need of Tutors to help his infirmities And the best Tutor he can have is government Now tell me which of the governments is best No question that which advanceth him neerest his first and primary condition Nature no otherwise intendeth government but as it contributeth in some measure or other to make up what it hath losed in the state of corruption And as it hath losed integrity so likewayes liberty It had both these in the state of perfection Well will any deny but of all goverments Democracy is most for liberty Monarchy and Aristocracy draw people's liberty within a narrow compasse In the one the whole liberty of the people is devolved upon one and in the other upon some few Thus the liberty which Man had in the state of perfection is extreamly eclipsed It denieth his native liberty to him though in a larger measure he be capable of it But Democracy giveth people their full liberty which they had in the state of perfection in so much as they are capable of it It withholdeth nothing of it from them which in conveniency and without violation of the Law it can give unto them It cannot conveniently give them the whole liberty which they had in their primary condition Otherwise they should be without government And so they should become out-laws loose and dissolute Thus they should come under the dominion of sin Which is not liberty but slavery To prevent the incurable and extreame contagion of which Nature hath provided Government as a remedy And that government which advanceth Nature in the state of fallen man in as much as it is capable of to the liberty which it had in the state of innocency and before the fall no question must be the chiefest remedy against such contagion Thus Nature in the state of Corruption is advanced so neer as is possible to it's state it was in in the case of perfection But Democracy amongst all Governments is that which advanceth Nature neerest to the liberty which it had in the state of perfection It giveth liberty not onely to one and some few but also to all It with-holdeth liberty from none in so far as it can consubsist with obedience to the Law to which Man was subjected in the very state of innocency It no otherwise with-holdeth liberty but as it preventeth Corruption's slavery Ergo of all Governments it is simply best No wonder for it advanceth Man neerest the condition he was in in the state of perfection SECT IV. Whether or not is it lawful to resist the Royal Person and decline the Royal Authority IT will be greater ease for us to remove this difficulty then those which formerly by the Lords abundant help we have fully discussed You learn our mind in this matter from that which followeth Assert 1. It is not lawful to resist the King as King nor the Kingly Power as the Kingly power There is very good reason for this for the King as King is ordained by God and Kingly Government in it self is God's Ordinance Therefore formally positively and directly we cannot resist the King nor the Kingly power unlesse we be found fighters against God This is at length made good by us sect 1. ass 1. Assert 2. It is lawful and commendable to resist the tyranny of the King and the abuse of his power This we make good from several examples in Scripture 1. From the example of Saul's Army which in resisting him rescued Jonathan from his fury 1 Sam. 14. Royallists such as Mr. Symons and Ferne do opinionate this was done by no violence but by prayers and tears But this is false There is not a word of prayers and tears in the text The people without and contrary to the King's consent enter in oath for rescuing Jonathan Yea which is more contrary to the King's oath they laid their heads together and did bind themselves by oath to rescue him The King's oath is God do so and more also for thou shalt surely die Jonathan The People's oath is contrary to that As the Lord liveth there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground They go not behind his back but they tell it him in his face the people said unto Saul Shall Jonathan die Thus they withstand him to his face The very highest degree of resistance 2. David resisted and withstood Saul's fury 1 Sam. 22.23 c. 1 Chr. 12. Nay but Arnisaeus saith David's fact in resisting