A26924:577
The English nonconformity as under King Charles II and King James II truly stated…
The English nonconformity as under King Charles II and King James II truly stated and argued by Richard Baxter ; who earnestly beseecheth rulers and clergy not to divide and destroy the land and cast their own souls on the dreadful guilt and punishment of national perjury ...
London: printed for Tho. Parkhurst, 1689
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
L. I pray you let us end this tender Controversy.
M. I have yet a few more doubts to be resolved. Politics being the Foundation of Juris-prudentia, I doubt not but you have studied Politics: I pray you tell me why all Politics placing a Republic in the predicament of Relation, do make the bonum publicum to be its essential terminus in the definition.
M. I have yet a few more doubts to be resolved. Politicks being the Foundation of Iuris-prudentia, I doubt not but you have studied Politicks: I pray you tell me why all Politicks placing a Republick in the predicament of Relation, do make the bonum publicum to be its essential terminus in the definition.
L. Because it is so indeed; it being no Civitas or Respublica that is not for the Common good; and therefore they make it the difference between a King and a Tyrant, that a King ruleth for the Common good, and a Tyrant for his private Ends and Interests.
M. But by your leave I think that distinction ill and dangerously uttered: For every man hath some culpable selfishness; and also the Kings Self-interest is Lawfully intended: For Commonwealths called Kingdoms being at first Constituted by Contract, no doubt there was necessary the Consent of both the Contracting Parties: None can be King against his Will. And do you think any Man would take a Crown only for the good of others, without security for his own just Interest, Honour and Prerogative, without which he cannot well Govern? Therefore I think that those Politics too loosely describe Tyranny, by self-interest, and can prove no man a proper Tyrant in Exercitio (distinct from an Usurper) but him that seeks the destruction of the Commonwealth, whose good he is bound to preserve. But I further ask you, Do you think the Law of Man, or a Commission can abrogate the Law of Nature?