Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	according_a	law_n	word_n	2,848	5	4.0699	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A58387	Reflections upon the opinions of some modern divines conerning the nature of government in general, and that of England in particular with an appendix relating to this matter, containing I. the seventy fifth canon of the Council of Toledo II. the original articles in Latin, out of which the Magna charta of King John was framed III. the true Magna charta of King John in French ... / all three Englished.	Allix, Pierre, 1641-1717.; Catholic Church. Council of Toledo (4th : 633). Canones. Number 75. English & Latin.	1689 (1689)	Wing R733; ESTC R8280	117,111	184

otherwise than by Patience when they are convinced in Conscience of the Injustice of the Laws and Commands enjoyned 'T is an easie matter to overthrow the First of these Suppositions First I would fain know who has given these Gentlemen the Power of determining as they do what is Essential to Sovereignty Do they derive these their Notions from Revelation or from Reason which is common to all Men If they say they derive the definition they give us of Sovereignty from Revelation they will do well to point us to the places of Scripture where this Notion is set down If they draw it from Reason then I cannot but wonder that so many Statesmen and Writers of Civil Matters have fail'd of stumbling on the same Notion and it seems to me an inextricable thing that so many Nations should agree to reject what they approve and to approve what they reject To say here That they draw this definition from the Idea of Sovereignty which loseth its nature when divested of these Characters shews they are willing either to abuse themselves or others by a pitiful Equivocation The word Sovereign imports a relation to Inferiors and as the relation has a certain foundation so it is likewise evident that it hath its bounds set proportionable to its foundation Where there is no Authority neither is there any foundation for Obedience Now there is no Authority but in proportion to the Laws which establish the Authority wherefore it incontestably follows There can be no Authority where the Law is so far from allowing any that it opposes it It will never cease to be true That the Authority is Sovereign though it be not so in all respects The Consuls of Rome were Sovereign Magistrates though the People had Power to oppose themselves against their Authority when they abused the Power they were intrusted with for the good of the Commonwealth In France they give their Parliaments the Name of Sovereign Courts though their Sentence be not always irrevocable The Second Supposition is only founded upon this Notion That Conquerors having invaded the Liberty and Privileges of the People were afterwards so kind to restore some part thereof to them again by their Concessions but that these Acts of Grace do not at all divest them of the Right of Acting whenever it shall please them as if their Power was altogether Unlimited and Arbitrary This Notion is much the same with that of the Partisans of the Court of Rome who maintain That the Liberties of the Gallican Church are only Acts of Grace and Favour granted to that Church whereas the French pretend That they are common Rights and Franchises which their Ancestors have constantly maintained according to what P. Pithou declares concerning them But indeed to speak truly this Supposition cannot be admitted with respect to conquered States at least for the most part Ordinarily a Conquest is made upon the Power that governs the State so that the State only changes its Master the fundamental Laws of the Land receiving no Alteration from this Change. Of this we have an Instance in England when King William conquered it who at his Coronation sware to keep the Laws of St. Edward and his Successors were fain to swear the same Now one of these Laws c. 15. T. 1. Spelm. p. 622. imports That a Prince that abuseth the Power he is intrusted with does lose the Title of King From whence it follows That his Subjects need not own or obey him and that consequently it is lawful to resist him To maintain That a King whose Power is limited by the fundamental Laws of a State and which he is invested with upon that condition when at his Coronation he swears to the People is indeed obliged to keep the said Oath for fear of God but that he is not at all engaged by this his Oath to the People is rather a piece of Raillery than Reasoning What Does not the Oath the People swear to the King oblige them in Allegiance to him and how can we then suppose that the reciprocal Oath of the King should not as well oblige him to his People Surely if we well weigh the case 't is impossible but we must discern a palpable falsity in this Opinion of Passive Obedience in the way these Gentlemen propose it First They grant a Right unto Sovereignty which is diametrically opposite to the end of Sovereignty according to the Divine Destination For the good of the Society and its Subsistence was God's End in insticuting of the Sovereign Power whereas by their Hypothesis the Sovereignty may become an instrument of the utter ruin of the Society whensoever it shall please the Sovereign his Subjects in the mean time having no means to attain the said End or being in any condition to hinder their being deprived of it Secondly They suppose That God in allowing a lawful Right to Sovereigns has subjected the People to a necessity of groaning under an Illegal Right and which God has never bestowed upon them and for the Usurpation of which he will condemn those who do arrogate the same to themselves which is much to the same purpose as if I should say That because God has established Judges he has thereby obliged the People to suffer Robbery when the Judges shall think fit to turn Robbers Thirdly They make the condition of a Civil Society more unhappy than was the condition of Families in the state of Nature before Societies were formed For the liberty of defending one's self is permitted to every one by Nature but after the Society is once formed it would follow That the whole Society would be obliged by a Principle of Conscience to suffer their Throats to be cut by a Prince of the humour of a Nero or a Caligula Fourthly They turn to meer Chymera's and Visions whatsoever the wisdom of Men have been able to find out to make States happy by securing them against Tyranny I speak of Laws and Oaths the Laws are the bands and cement of the Society and the foundation as well as the measure of the Obedience we owe to Princes The Oaths are the Seal of the Contract by which the Subjects are obliged to obey them upon condition that they govern according to Law. But all this is to no purpose and is of no use to the People as soon as the Tyrant thinks fit to overturn the Laws and to m●ke a Scoff at his Oaths Forasmuch as the Third Supposition viz. That the Scripture maintains Non-resistance with regard to Sovereigns whether they act according to or against Law is of greater importance it will be convenient to examine the same more heedfully and the rather because Men of Abilities and Learning have endeavoured strongly to assert it and to make it pass current with others and that with all their might CHAP. VII That the Scripture doth not assert the point of Non-resistance FOrasmuch as the Doctrine of Non-resistance directly thwarts a natural Principle to wit that of our

to the Society Now that Samuel had not any the least Design to appropriate an unbounded Power to the Kings of Israel 1 Sam. 8. by these Words hoc est jus Regis appears 1st Because the word Mispath ordinarily signifies consuetudo agendi ratio a custom manner or way of acting in case we do not explain this word in the same sense it carries in the 2d chap. of the same Book ver 13. we shall make this passage to contradict Deut. 17. which cannot be otherwise avoided This is acknowledged by Learned Men who therein agree with Schickardus de jure Hebraeorum Cap. 2. Thess 7. p. 65. 2ly The Fathers are of the same opinion see what Beda saith in his Exposition upon Samuel Lib. 2. Hoc erit jus Regis qui imperaturus est vobis Non qualis esse debeat moderatus justus Imperator exposuit cujus in plerisque Scripturae sacrae locis maxime in Deuteronomio perfectio docetur sed potius Rector improbus qui austeritate subjectos sit oppressurus intimat ut per hoc populum a pertinaci ejus petitione revocet This will be the Behaviour of the King that shall rule over you He doth not s●t forth the Qualifications of a moderate and just Ruler who is fully represented to us in many places of Scripture but especially in Deuteronomy but rather those of a wicked Governour who by his Cruelty should oppress his Subjects that thereby he might deter them ●●om their obstinate demanding of him 3. The Divines that did not understand Hebrew yet by good sense and Reason were led to the true meaning of this word Gerson lays it down as a certain Truth that this word does not express a lawful Right but an unjust Power Dictio haec Jus non significat semper Jurisdictionem sive Justitiam sed significat interdum Potestatem quae non est justa c. sicut haec dictio Rex quandoque sumitur pro Tyranno Benedictio pro maledictione Lex injustitiae pro injustitiae execratione Deus pro Diabolo This word Jus doth not always signifie Right or Justice but sometimes an unjust Power c. even as also the word King is sometimes taken for a Tyrant and Blessing for Cursing and the law of unrighteousness for the execrable unrighteousness and God for the Devil Opusc contr Adulator Princip in Consid 8. The same also was the Judgment of Claudius Espenseus a famous Divine of the Romish Church who told Henry II of France Your Majesty ought to abhor that Right nothing less than Regal and nothing more than Tyrannical which God by the mouth of Samuel did not allow the King but wherewith he threatned the People saying Hoc erit Jus Regis this will be the Right of a King. Treatise of the Institution of a Prince Ch. 8. 4. It appears evidently that Samuel represents to us the picture of a Tyrant in opposition to the description of a King God had set down in the 17 chap. of Deuteronomy 5. The Jews of old have always owned as much as appears from Josephus Lib. 4. cap. 8. 6. It appears that those who conceive the matter otherwise suppose a greater Power and Authority in Princes than they ascribe to God himself who never commands any Thing but what is reasonable and just as St. Paul judged who calls all the Duty we owe to God a Reasonable Service Rom. 12. 7. If any one will take the pains to read the Characters Solomon has given of a King in divers places of the Proverbs he shall find that nothing can be more opposite to this Idea of an unbounded Power which some would gather from these words of Samuel 8. The Kings of Israel never enjoyed any such Power or ever pretended to it the History of Naboth whose Vineyard King Ahab greatly desired is a proof hereof beyond all exception 1. Kings ch 21. Jezebel would never have been put to the trouble to employ false Witnesses to destroy Naboth as a Blasphemer if she had had in Israel some of those Divines Flatterers of the Grandeur of Princes who abuse the Holy Scripture to authorize all the injustice and oppression they are guilty of I am sure it is impossible to read without astonishment the extravagance of some Divines who conceive that the words of Samuel contain an Explication of the Rights of Royalty and that Samuel wrote them in a Book as being the publick and incontestable Rights of Monarchy Withal let us make this Reflection which is very natural The Jews here complain of the injustice and violence of Samuel's Sons who made a mock of the Laws whereupon 't is supposed that they to remedy this mischief require of Samuel to set a King over them that might govern them according to his own Fancy and treat them like Slaves Is there any thing of sense in the Supposition We suppose that the King has already a Rule prescrib'd him in the 17 of Deuteronomy and at the same Time we maintain that Samuel a Prophet has in a publick Record set down the Description of a Tyrant to whom God gives Right to violate all the Rules he had prescribed in his Law. Sure it is that neither the Antient nor Modern Jews did ever conceive any such thing If we read Josephus where he sets down an abridgment of the 17 of Deuteronomy we shall find that he expresly asserts that it was not only the Right but also the Duty of the People to oppose themselves against their Designs in case they violate the Rules of the Royalty God had prescribed them Let us consider the carriage of the Maccabees against Antiochus and we shall find that they did not believe it unlawful to resist Tyrants and to oppose themselves to their destructive Government Let any one read the 14 of the first Book of the Maccabees and he will see whether the Rights of the King which at that Time were engraven on Brass had any resemblance with what we find in the 8th chap. of Samuel This is a sure way to judge whether the Jews ever pretended that God by these words of Samuel had granted to Kings an unlimited Power They to this day acknowledg that the Scripture does not only prescribe Moral Laws which their Kings could not violate but also positive Laws to which they were obnoxious and which they could not transgress without submitting themselves to the same punishments with the rest of their Subjects This is the common opinion of the Jews as we may see in Maimonides de Regibus Cap. 3. Sect. 4. and in the treatise of the Sanhedrim cap. 19. num 166 167 168. which Doctrine he borrowed from the Talmud cap. Cohen Gadol and from Siphri upon the Parasche Schophetim 2ly They hold that if the King did change the form of Government into Tyranny the People had Right to reject him The History of Rehoboam rejected by the ten Tribes is a proof hereof beyond exception 3ly They hold that the People suppos'd