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
A59904	A vindication of The case of allegiance due to soveraign powers, in reply to An answer to a late pamphlet, intituled, Obedience and submission to the present government, demonstrated from Bishop Overal's convocation-book, with a postscript in answer to Dr. Sherlock's Case of allegiance, &c. by William Sherlock.	Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707.	1691 (1691)	Wing S3375; ESTC R11110	75,308	83

never intended him for since the Israelites did submit to the Aramites and Moabites c. and according to our Author Submission gives a legal Right he could not imagine why I said that those Nations never could have a legal Right to the Government of Israel unless it were because God was at that time their Soveraign and He did not submit and the Submission of the Soveraign as well as of the People is necessary to give a legal Right And now he had started an Objection which he knew not what to do with and his Answer is as extravagant as the Objection for he has found out something which he thinks equivalent to God's Submission to the Aramites and Moabites and that is that God delivered them into their hands What then did God resign his Government of Israel into the hands of the Aramites and Moabites and quit his Right and Claim to the Government of them Spectatum admissi But to proceed I will grant this Author that legal Powers may be understood in a larger Notion as that may be said to be Legal which is agreeable to the Laws of Nature or Nations and in this sence Submission may make a legal King of him who according to the Laws of the Land can be only a King de Facto This is worth considering and therefore I shall briefly explain it In a State of Nature wherein we must suppose all Men free from any Government but that of Parents and Heads of Families which how far it extended before Civil Governments were formed we cannot tell they were at liberty to give up the Government of themselves to whom they pleased and this made such Persons their legal and rightful Princes and Governours by the Law of Nature For Men who are free may give the Government of themselves to another and if they may do this their doing it is a Law to themselves Especially Nature teaches this When Men are over-powered by Force and must either submit to the Government or suffer the Vengeance and Fury of an Usurping Nimrod for Nature teaches us to preserve ourselves and therefore justifies whatever may be lawfully done to preserve ourselves and in a State of Nature Men may part with their Liberty and submit to be governed by another and such a Submission with respect to themselves gives a Right for it is a voluntary Consent tho' extorted by Force as all Moralists allow such a mixt Choice and Election to be But it will be said This is nothing to us who are at such a distance from the first Original of Government this can be done but once for when we have given up ourselves to the Government of another we have given away our Liberty to chuse for ourselves Right unless we fall into a State of Nature and Liberty again or something like it which may be done many ways but I shall name but one and that is in case of a new prevailing Force that is with respect to a Kingdom when Prince and People are conquered for then the Government is at an end and they are as much at liberty to submit to a Conquering Prince as they were in the State of Nature for every Dissolution of Government must so far restore us to the State and Liberties of Nature as to provide for ourselves or if the Prince be conquered and driven out of his Kingdom and the People in the Power of the Conqueror they are as perfectly at liberty to submit to the new Conqueror as they were before to submit to their old Prince or his Ancestors with respect to private Subjects when their Prince or the Government of the Nation is violently Changed and they are as much under the Force and Power of the new Prince or new Government as they could be under a conquering Prince who had Conquered both King and People for Force will justifie Submission and then it is much the same thing from what quarter the Force comes when a Man is under the power of a new Government which he cannot resist and which will not protect him nay which will undo and ruine him if he will not submit it is all one to him with respect to his Submission as if both his King and Country were absolutely conquered Though we live under a settled Government yet if we happen to fall into the hands of Thieves and Robbers where the Government can't protect us we may very innocently for our own preservation promise and swear to them such things as are against the Laws of the Land and which it would be unlawful for us to do in other circumstances and then I think with greater reason if the Government cannot protect itself nor its Subjects from a greater Force Subjects are at liberty to shift for themselves and to submit to the greater Power for our Obligations to human Government are reasonably supposed to except the case of a greater force since such Obligations can last no longer than the Government lasts Conquest is the death and dissolution of the Government and dissolves the Contract as the death of either Party does the Marriage-Vow This is not as some vainly talk to justifie the breach of Oaths and Promises to save ourselves and to make Self-preservation the only Supreme Rule of Good and Evil but the dissolution of the Government or of the Power of the Prince to protect himself or his Subjects in his Government puts an end to the Obligation of Oaths for in matters of Government it is an unalterable Right of Nature to submit to Force All Men will grant that no human Laws and Constitutions are so sacred as the positive Laws of God I mean that Government and Polity which God himself prescribed to the Children of Israel which they were religiously bound to observe by vertue of their Covenant with God which certainly was as sacred as any Oath Now these Laws did not admit of the Authority and Government of Strangers but expresly forbad it that had they chose to be governed by any Foreign Prince they had greatly sinned in it but this very Law as sacred as it was gave way to necessity and when they were conquered by the Aramites or Moabites or any other Nation it was no fault to submit to them And if Force would justifie this in the Israelites who had God for their King and were obliged by their Covenant with him to accept of no Forreign Prince to govern them it is hard if it will not justifie the Subjects of Human Governments most of which were at first founded in meer Force whatever their Oaths or Obligations be to submit to a new and greater Force And this gives a sufficient Answer to what our Author adds in the place last quoted That God's being the King of Israel would be an argument against their submission for the Doctor tells us That where God entails the Crown he refers to what I say about Ioash and Athaliah of which more anon the people were not to submit to an Usurper if

first Case tho the Subject is taken Captive yet the foundation of the Relation is not destroyed for his Prince is on his Throne still in the actual administration of the Government tho he be violently torn from him so that this Relation may continue because he has a Prince to whom he is related but when the Prince is fallen from his Kingdom and Power the foundation of the Relation is at present destroyed the Kingdom is translated to another Prince and the Subjects and their Allegiance translated with it Our Author proceeds to argue from the Case of Ioash The Doctor 's distinction that is about a Divine Entail is against him 'T is true God did entail the Kingdom of Judah on the Family of David and for that reason they ought not to submit to an Vsurper But this is so far from being a reason why they may submit to one in other Kingdoms where Entails are made by Laws that it is a reason and a very good one why they ought not But before we hear his Reason I must observe that he mistakes the use of my Distinction which was not to prove That because God had entailed the Kingdom of Iudah on the Posterity of David and had reserved to himself a right in the Kingdom of Israel to nominate their King and entail the Crown when he pleased that therefore the Subjects of those Kingdoms might not submit to any other Kings whom the Providence of God placed in the Throne without such a Divine Nomination and Entail for it appears from what I have already discoursed that they both actually did and lawfully might submit to such providential Kings when either there was no King by God's Nomination or Entail or no such King was known but the use of the Distinction was to shew that in such Theocratical Kingdoms where God challenged a peculiar right to make Kings by his express Nomination or Entail though God may see fit sometimes to set a providential King upon the Throne yet whenever he nominates a new King or discovers the right Heir to whom the Crown belongs by a Divine Entail the Reign of such Providential Kings is at an end and the Subjects may and ought to depose or kill them and own the King of God's nomination so that if he will prove any thing from my Distinction with reference to other entailed Kingdoms he must shew that my Distinction proves that in such Kingdoms where God makes Kings only by his Providence a Humane Entail of the Crown will justifie Subjects in deposing and murthering a new King who is placed and setled in the Throne by Providence while the Legal King or Legal Heir is Living as much as God's express Nomination or Entail would justifie the deposing a Providential King in the Kingdoms of Iudah and Israel And now let us hear his Reason For says he God's entailing the Crown of Judah was the Law of that Kingdom in that respect and the people of other Kingdoms are as much bound to observe their own Laws as the people of Iudah were theirs All Humane Laws that are just bind in Conscience and according to the Doctor 's own Principles these Laws were made by God's Authority So that the Doctor mistakes the Question we do not oppose Humane Laws to God's Authority but we oppose Laws which are made by God's Authority and which are Rules to us to Providence which is no Rule When God entailed the Crown upon David's Posterity they had then a Legal Right to it and so hath every Family in other Kingdoms upon which an Entail is made by the respective Laws of the Countrey But what would our Author prove from this That in every Hereditary Kingdom the Legal Heir has a Legal right to the Crown as well as in Iudah and did I ever deny it or that the standing Laws of every Countrey are the Rule for Subjects in setting up Kings when it is their own free Act and Choice and who denies this too There is a Dispute indeed whether the Laws of England do oblige Subjects in all cases to make the next Lineal Heir to the Crown their King but no man ever denied but that in making Kings Subjects are bound by the Laws of the Land when it is their own free and voluntary Act. I am sure my Hypothesis is not concerned in this Question and therefore be it how it will it can prove nothing against me Or would he prove that when an Entail is setled either by Divine or Humane Laws God never interposes by his Providence to set up a King who has not this Entailed Legal Right This was manifestly false both in the Kingdom of Iudah and Israel which God had reserved for his own Nomination or Entail and yet He set up several providential Kings Athaliah in Iudah and Baasha and Omri and Ahab and Ioram and others in Israel and in all other Kingdoms at one time or other Or would he prove that when God by his Providence has setled a Prince in the Throne without a Legal Right Subjects ought not to obey him and submit to him as their King This is confuted by the Examples of Iudah and Israel who submitted to Athaliah and their providential Kings who had no Legal Right by a Divine Nomination or Entail and are yet never blamed for it Or would he prove that a Human Entail of the Crown does as much oblige Subjects in Conscience to pull down a King who is setled in his Throne by God's Providence with a National Consent and Submission but without a Legal Right to set the Legal Heir on his Throne again as Iehoiada was by virtue of the Divine Entail to anoint Ioash and slay Athaliah This is the single Point he ought to prove but I do not see that he offers any thing like a proof of it The sum of his Argument is this That a Human Entail of the Crown made by the Laws of any Countrey does in all Cases and to all intents and purposes as much oblige Subjects as a Divine Entail which is only the Law of the Kingdom too For the people of other Kingdoms are as much bound to observe their own Laws as the people of Judah were theirs The Dispute in general about the Authority and obligation of Humane Laws is very impertinent to this purpose for no man denies it But yet we think Divine Political Laws much more sacred and universally obligatory than any meer Human Laws tho they are made by men who have their Authority of Government and consequently of making Laws from God and I believe our Author is the first man who has equalled Humane Laws with those Laws which are immediately given by God But the Dispute between Divine and Humane Laws and a Divine and Humane Entail of the Crown are of a very different nature though they be both the Laws of the Countrey for which they are made as will easily appear if we compare God's making Kings by a providential settlement of them

setling the Crown in such a Family by a legal Entail against his Providence in setling a new King upon the Throne It is all but Providence still and I desire to know why the Providence of an Entail is more Sacred and Obligatory than any other Act of Providence which gives a Setled possession of the Throne What follows is pretty and nothing more The Land of Canaan was divided among the Twelve Tribes by God's express Command and this answers to God's Entail of the Crown on David ' s Family the possession in all other Countries is only by Providence and this answers to a humane Right and Title to the Crown Well! there is something of likeness between them and what then And therefore according to the Doctor 's way of reasoning every Man who wrongfully possessed himself of another Man's Estate in that Land Canaan must be made to restore it for God had expresly given it to the other and to his Family But in all other Countries if a Man by Providence get his Neighbour's Estate he must have it for the event is God's Act and it is his evident Decree and Counsel that he should have it Now the fundamental mistake which runs through all these kind of Arguments is this That they make the events of Providence in private injuries Thefts Robberies Encroachments of one Subject on another Subject's Rights to be the very same with God's disposal of Kingdoms and to have the same effects whereas all private injuries are reserved by God himself to the correction and redress of Publick Government and Humane Courts of Justice and therefore his Providence has no effect at all on such personal Rights but the very nature of the thing proves that such disputes which are too big for a legal decision or any humane Courts for the decision of which God has erected no universal Tribunal on Earth he has reserved to his own judgment such as the Correction of Sovereign Princes and the transferring Kingdoms and Empires and here the final determinations of Providence in setling Princes on their Thrones draws the Allegiance and Submission of Subjects after it and in such Cases God does not confine himself to determine on the side of Humane Right but acts with a Soveraign Authority and gives the Kingdoms of the World to whom he pleases as he can best serve the Wise and many times the unsearchable designs of his Providence by it which shows how much our Author is out in applying what I said of God's making Kings to God's disposal of private Estates It is to say that God as well as Men is confined to humane Laws In making Kings I said In disposing of Estates saith our Author as if disposing of Estates and making Kings were the very same thing whereas God has erected humane Judicatures to Judge of the first but has reserved the second to his own judgment and when God himself judges he judges with Authority with Wisdom with Justice superior to all humane Laws Our Author might as well have said That we must not resist private Men or Inferior Officers when they are injurious because we must not resist a Sovereign Prince when he illegally oppresses us as that we must not dispossess a private Subject who has injuriously possessed himself of our Estates because Subjects must not pull down a Prince who is setled in the Throne without a legal Right The Poet would have taught him the difference between these two Cases Regum timendorum in proprios Greges Reges in ipsos Imperium est Iovis Subjects are under the Government and Correction of Princes Princes under the Government of God And besides this according to my Principles Kings must be thoroughly setled in their Government before it becomes unlawful for Subjects to dispossess them and then if he will make the Cases parallel He who unjustly seizes another Man's Estate must be throughly setled in it before it becomes unlawful to dispossess him but that no private Man can be who is under the Government of Laws and has not the possession of his Estate given him by Law and when he has whether right or wrong he must not be violently dispossessed again but in Causes superior to Laws as the revolutions of Government and the translations of Kingdoms are there may be a thorow settlement by a setled possession without Law and must be so where Laws cannot determine the controversy that is where there is no superior Tribunal to take cognizance of it So that as our Author has stated the Case it signifies nothing to the present purpose for whether private Mens Estates be setled by a Divine or Humane Entail it is the same case if they suffer any Injury from their Fellow-Subjects they must seek for Redress from publick Government but I could have told him a way how to have applied this case to the purpose but then it would not have been to his purpose but to mine In Canaan where God allotted every Tribe and Family their Inheritance none could pretend a Right to any Portion of Land but what was allotted them but in other Countries which were left in common Possession and Occupation gave a Right Thus in Iudah none had an ordinary Right to the Crown but those who were nominated by God or had the Crown descended on them by a Divine Entail but in other Countries Possession and Occupation gave a Right to the Allegiance of Subjects In Canaan when God had setled such an Inheritance in a Family it could never be perpetually alienated but tho it were sold it could be sold for no longer time than till the year of Iubilee when all Estates were to return to their old Proprietors again but in other Countries Men may part with their Estates for ever Thus in the Kingdom of Iudah tho God by his Sovereign Authority might set up a Providential King yet this did not cut off the Entail but when ever the true Heir appeared Subjects if they were at liberty were bound to make him King and dispossess the Usurper but in other Kingdoms a Kingdom may be lost as well as an Inheritance sold for ever In Answer to that Objection That the Laws of the Land in such Cases as these are the measure of our Duty and the Rule of Conscience and therefore we must own no King but whom the Laws of the Land own to be King that is in an H●reditary Monarchy the right Heir I granted That the Laws of the Land are the Rule of Conscience when they do not contradict the Laws of God but when they do they are no Rule to us but their Obligation must give place to a Divine Authority Suppose then there were an express Law that the Subjects of England should own no King but the Right Heir and notwithstanding this Law as it will sometimes happen and has often happened in England a Prince who is not the right Heir should get into the Throne and settle himself there if the Divine Law