Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
judgement_n court_n judge_n law_n 3,614 5 4.9602 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A46961 Remarks upon Dr. Sherlock's book intituled The case of resistance of the supreme powers stated and resolved, according to the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures written in the year 1683, by Samuel Johnson. Johnson, Samuel, 1649-1703. 1689 (1689) Wing J839; ESTC R32984 24,921 80

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

et Dominationem Potestatem c. than this Discourse of Fortescue is 2. Another Reason which he gives why the King is Irresistible in all Cases is Because he is a Sovereign and it is essential to Sovereignty to be irresistible in all Cases Which is false For the King of Poland is a Sovereign He coins Money with his own Image and Superscription upon it which according to our Author p. 50. is a certain Mark of Sovereignty and p. 51. by the very Impression on their Money it is evident that he is their Sovereign Lord He stiles himself by the same Grace of God with any King in Christendom and wears the like Crown He assembles Dyets he disposes of all Offices he judges the Palatines themselves and is full of the Marks of Sovereignty And yet he that shall take a Polish Peny and make such work with it as our Author does with the Roman Tribute money and out of it read Lectures either of Active or Passive Obedience in all Cases will read amiss For in case he break his Coronation-Oath they owe him no Obedience at all of any kind for this is one Clause in it Quod si Sacramentum meum violavero incoloe Regni nullam nobis obedientiam praestare tenebuntur So that in case he violate his Oath his Irresistibility departs from him and he becomes like other Men. 3. A third Reason is Because the Iewish Kings in the Old Testament and Caesar in the New Testament were Irresistible in all Cases Now that is more than I know and I leave it to Divines to examine whether it was so or no as also to enquire why the Christians of Nero's Houshold did not shew their Loyalty in defending their Master after the Senate had pronounced That he was Hostis Humani generis But this I say That if they were thus Irresistible and if this be a good Argument here it is a good Argument in Poland and thither I would desire our Author to send it by the next Shipping for the Law of the Land has furnish'd us with those which are much better I come now to the second Case which as I said before is resolved under the covert and countenance of the former That as well inferiour Magistrates as others imploy'd by a Popish or Tyrannical Prince in the most Illegal and Outragious Acts of Violence such as cutting of Throats c. are as Irresistible as the Prince himself under pretence of having the Prince's Authority to do these Acts and must be submitted to under pain of Hell and Eternal Damnation Now this Resolution is very false which I shall shew 1. By confuting all the Reasons which are brought for it and 2. By producing some Reasons against it His Reasons are 1 st A Personal Authority in the Prince antecedent and superior to all Laws which makes himself inviolable tho he trample upon all Laws and exercise an Arbitrary Power and makes all others inviolable under him who act by this Authority But I have shewed already that this Personal Authority is false and groundless and that the King is inviolable by Law and that this Prerogative is highly just and reasonable and can never prejudice the Subject for the King can do no wrong And it is plain that he cannot give such an illegal and miscalled Authority to others if he have it not himself To shew that the Authority to which we are bound to submit is not in Laws but in Persons tho acting contrary to Law he has brought this following Argument which is the most laboured of any in his Book Nay it is very false and absurd to say that every Illegal is an Vnauthoritative Act which carries no Obligation with it This is contrary to the Practice of all Humane Iudicatures and the daily Experience of Men who suffer in their Lives Bodies and Estates by an unjust and illegal Sentence For the most illegal Iudgment is valid till it be revers'd by some Superior Court which most Illegal but Authoritative Iudgment derives its Authority not from the Law but the Person of him whose Iudgment it is Now to use his own words this is very false and absurd all over For 1 st Legal and Authoritative are all one and Illegal Authority is in English unlawful lawful Power 2 dly It is not true That an Illegal Judgmen is valid till it be revers'd For the Judgment of a Man to Death in an Arbitrary way either contrary to the Verdict of his Jury or without a Jury is not Authoritative nor Valid at all no not for an hour But I suppose by Illegal Iudgments this Author means legal Judgments which have Error in them and if these should not be Valid and stand Good till that Error be found in some Higher Court there could not be Legal nor Illegal nor any Judgments at all but all humane Judicatures must come to an end For if Judgment cannot be given till we have Judges who are not subject to Error the Laws must lie by and rust and there can be no Administration of Justice 3 dly The Authority of a Judgment which is Erroneous is not from the Judges Personal Authority above the Law nor from his mistakes beside the Law but from that Jurisdiction and Authority which the Law has given to Courts and Judicial Proceedings which if they be in due Course o● Law are legal and are presumed to be every way right and as they should be and free from Error til● the contrary appears in some Highe● Court. But if the Judges in Westminster-Hall should use a Personal Authority superiour to Law in judging Men to Death without a Jury or in condemning a Man when his Jury acquits him or the like the Law having given no Authority to any such Proceedings these Judgments would be illegal and void and have no Authority at all And herein I say no more than this Author himself has said in another place For where he professedly lays down the difference betwixt an Absolute Monarchy and the English Constitution pag. 208 209. he has these words An Absolute Monarch is under the Government of no Law but his own Will and is not ty'd up to strict Rules and Formalities of Law in the execution of Iustice but it is quite contrary in a Limited Monarchy where no Man can lose his Life or Estate without a Legal Process and Trial. But thus do men contradict themselves who write by rote and without considering things and thus does their blind Passive Obedience tie us up to Impossibilities and oblige us to lose our Lives and Estates without a Legal Process and Trial where even as this Author confesses no man can lose them in such a way 2 dly Another reason why we must submit to Illegal Violence is this Because though they have no Legal Authority for it yet we have no Legal Authority to defend our selves against it But he himself has given as full an Answer to this as can be desir'd in these