a presumption of too high a nature

[absd]

"His majesty's kingly resolutions," said the lord keeper, "are seated in the ark of his sacred breast, and it were a presumption of too high a nature for any Uzzah uncalled to touch it. Yet his Majesty is now pleased to lay by the shining Beams of Majesty, as Phœbus did to Phaeton, that the distance between Sovereignty and Subjection should not bar you of that filial freedom of Access to his Person and Counsels; only let us beware how, with the Son of Clymene, we aim not at the guiding of the Chariot, as if that were the only Testimony of Fatherly Affection; and let us remember, that though the King sometimes lays by the Beams and Rays of Majesty, he never lays by Majesty itself."


It's not a question about the references in the paragraph, but only an English question.
I don't get what the two underlined parts mean there.

What is "presumption of too high a nature"? Is it a kind of an anastrophe that is originally "a presumption of a nature that is too high"?
And if so, what would the "presumption of nature (that is) too high mean then?

I don't have any clue what the second one even means.
It seems the speaker is comparing the relationship between the king and his subjects with the one between a father and his child, but still don't get what it means.

Please help!

In case you need the context of it, the full text is available via the link below:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/64344/64344-h/64344-h.htm

 

[jutfrank]

What is "presumption of too high a nature"? Is it a kind of an anastrophe that is originally "a presumption of a nature that is too high"?

Yes, exactly.

And if so, what would the "presumption of nature (that is) too high mean then?

Too holy. He's referring to the story of Uzzah, who died for touching the Ark. The basic idea is that Charles, being king, has a kind of divine status.

I don't have any clue what the second one even means.

Help us out by telling us exactly what you don't get. Are you wondering about the meaning of the words themselves or about what the speaker is trying to do with the paragraph as whole?

 

[absd]

Thank you for your reply!

In case of the second underlined part, I think both the speaker's intention and the meaning of words are confusing to me.
Especially the "filial freedom of Access to his Persons and Counsels" part.

It seems that he used "filial freedom" to compare the relationship between the king and his subject with the one between a father and his child, but don't get the meaning of the rest part of the sentence.

 

[emsr2d2]

In the case of the second underlined part, I think both the speaker's intention and the meaning of words are confusing [STRIKE]to[/STRIKE] for me, especially the "filial freedom of Access to his Persons and Counsels" part.

It seems that he used "filial freedom" to compare the relationship between the king and his subject with the one between a father and his child, but I don't get the meaning of the rest [STRIKE]part[/STRIKE] of the sentence.

Note my corrections above.

Regarding the underlined part above, do you only think they're confusing for you, or are they definitely confusing for you?

 

[absd]

Thank you for your correction and I'm sorry I don't understand what you are asking. I just want to know what the underlined part means.

 

[GoesStation]

Thank you for your correction and I'm sorry I don't understand what you are asking. I just want to know what the underlined part means.

Writing "I think both the speaker's intention and the meaning of words are confusing" expresses doubt about whether or not they're confusing. I think you meant simply that they are confusing. To express that idea, just write "both the speaker's intention and the meaning of words are confusing."

 

[absd]

You mean, "I think" is not proper in the expression. Now I get it. Thank you!

 

[GoesStation]

You mean, "I think" is not proper in the expression. Now I get it. Thank you!

Correct. I'm thinking about your question. I don't have an answer yet.