Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	act_n	parliament_n	peace_n	2,561	5	6.0915	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A63105	A treatise of the oath of supremacy	Walsh, Peter, 1618?-1688.	1679 (1679)	Wing T2097; ESTC R17363	56,021	94

Man is or ought to be a Dancing Master Indeed if she had taken upon her to have the whole power to Preach she might have said she is Preacher so that no Forreigner hath or ought to have any power to preach here for her having the whole power hinders any body from having any of it except under or from her but not now she renounces that For the being a Queen is not at all inconsistent with another's being a Preacher Hence the sense can be no other than either this she hath the Rule here and no body hath any part of it which is the same as she hath the Rule and all the Rule or elss this she hath all the Rule whence it follows that no Forreigner hath any part of it as he pretended 37. Lastly from the Queens saying that She will accept of those that take the Oath in the above said Sense as her good and obedient Subjects which seems to signify that this Oath was intended not to know of what Religion People were but to know who were Good and Obedient Subjects which they may be as well without denying the Pope's preaching Power as with it Hence it is extreamly more probable at least that the Admonition doth not exclude the Pastoral Power than that it doth and so 't is a sufficient Ground for any one to say to a Justice of Peace I intend to take this Oath in the Sense which to the best of my Judgment is given it by Act of Parliament Which as it is sufficient for the Satisfaction of my Conscience in case there be no Scandal for I in my Conscience judge that the King hath the Rule of this Kingdom and that the Pope hath no part of it and this only I acknowledge upon Oath Next I truly say that this Sense and no other is to the best of my Judgment though this may possibly be misinform'd the Sense given it by Law and in this and no other I take it So he can require no more of me who being to understand it and take it in the Sense of the Law do my best to do both right And more over agree with almost all as far as I can learn all Protestant Authors in holding this to be the Sense of the Law and Oath And consequently am not to be deny'd Leave to take it in this Sense upon pretence that the Sense I take it in is not allowable since 't is allow'd Publickly 38. Since then as we shall find if we reflect back upon the whole the Pope's Pastoral Power if excluded must be excluded by not taking the Words of the Oath in their most Common and Proper Sense to which also they are determin'd by being in Law-Books by all other words of the Oath by its Design and the words of all Acts concerning it Since it must be excluded by speaking without being spoke of since it must be excluded by Reason of some dislike without expressing that Dislike when as it is the Custom of these Laws to express the Reason that mov'd the Parliament to do what it did Since it must be excluded by the Parliament's doing a thing even in their own Thoughts nothing conducing to the End they design'd viz. to Allegiance Freedom from Charges c. which a Power purely Spiritual in the Pope no way prejudices Since it must be excluded by following the Example of Catholick Kings as to manner of Proceeding Words Things and All except some few Particulars which look'd into seem no more to exclude his Pastorship than what they did Since it cannot be excluded without the Parliament's willing that like Words of a former Act should not be taken in a Sense exclusive of it which could proceed only from a Will to have it not-excluded And willing at the same time that the Words of this Act be taken in a Sense exclusive of it which could proceed only from a Will to have it excluded Since it cannot be excluded without their bringing a Reason for the Lords not taking of it which was no Reason without having a mind to swear that the Pope had not what they certainly saw he had or at least to swear he had not a Power in words that did not signify the Exclusion of it more than of that they did not exclude Since it could not be excluded except it was Treason to profess what was excluded and not Treason to profess what was excluded since if it be suppos'd that the Pope's properly Pastoral Power was excluded it was Treason according to the Act to profess it and otherwise we know it was not Treason to profess it all Catholicks being not then esteem'd and punish'd as Traitors Since it could not be excluded except the Negative Clause be put so as not to conduce at all to bring about the only Designe of the Oath which was acknowledging Power in the Queen professing Allegiance and Knowledge of who were good Subjects Nor except the words of the Admonition be taken improperly and the later part of it be constru'd into Non-sense Since these Things are so as likewise that almost all Words especially if not consider'd in their proper Circumstances as these use not to be but as they ly in a single Paper separated from all that belongs to them are liable to have a wrong Sense forc'd into them 't is I think as evident as any thing of this Nature can well be that this which I have endeavour'd to prove to be the Sense of the Oath is indeed the true Sense of it And so as evident when these Things are publickly known as we need desire for our Swearing that the Pope's Power as of Faith is not excluded nor abjur'd what ever may be said of his other Powers that were in process of Time added to this Neither am I alone in this Thought Protestant Divines of the greatest Note and very learned in the Law which alone seems able to give solid Satisfaction in this Point bear me company or rather I bear them They may be seen at large cited by Mr. Cressy in his Reflexions upon the Oaths pag. 27. to 33. and in the Seasonable Discourse about the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy very lately Printed from p. 27. to p. 32. The Sum of their Sense is this That they clear both the Affirmative and Negative Clause in the Oath from intending either to exclude the Pope's Pastoral Supernatural purely Spiritual or Ministerial Power of the Keys or to give as I have shewn any such Power to the King and this in as express Words as can be invented Which lest this Treatise should be any way defective I shall here repeat 39. In Queen Elizabeths reign we have the Testimony Dr. Bilson Of Subject 2. Par. p. 218. of Doctor Bilson afterwards Bishop of Winchester whose expressions are these The Oath saith he expresseth not the duty of Princes to God but ours to them And as they must be obey'd when they joyn with the Truth so must they be endured

supremely gives them the Later Much more the Jurisdiction they have to make Temporal Laws to judge those that do against them and execute their Sentence And in this we have seen how the King as a Christian may be Judge and Teacher of Faith and that Authorized by the Law of the Land How as a King he may and ought to be Supreme Civil Judge of what Faith ought to be establish't by Law and the Supreme of those that Preach or cause People to Believe and Practice by establishing Faith its Preachers sent by Christ and their Directive Laws by Law and by giving them the Jurisdiction they may have from Law to do what Christ bid them lastly how he is the Supreme Giver of Power to make Civil Laws to Judge by them and Execute them 21. Thirdly There is in Truth more Assumed in the Objection than there is warrant for in the Act mentioned It does not appear there that the King is impower'd to judge of the Repugnance of Canons to the Law of God On the contrary it seems meant that that Matter should be left to the Clergy For why else should Sixteen of them be put into Commission Neither are the Words on which the Objection is grounded viz. That such Canons shall be retained as shall be approved to stand with the Laws of God c. the Words of the Parliament but of the Clergy themselves who cannot be thought to mean by them that the Laity should be Judges of the Law of God They are only recited by the Parliament which when it comes to do its own part uses other Expressions There are other Reasons why the King should interpose The Reason of the Act is assigned to be because Divers Constitutions c. be thought not only to be much Prejudicial to the King's Prerogative Royal and Repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm but also over-much onerous to his Highness and his Subjects Of those things who can Judge so well as the King with the Assistance of some of the Laity best versed in the Laws of the Land Again the King was to add his Authority to those Canons to make them Binding and therefore must needs know what he should Authorize and see why he should do it And this is all the Power in him which can be Collected from this Statute As for Appeals the Act indeed orders they should for lack of Justice in other Courts be made in Chancery but not determined there but by Commission to be granted by the King that all Differences of his Subjects be finally determin'd by his Authority But 't is not said nor is to be supposed that those Commissions shall be granted to the Laity where the Case concerns the Law of God For Appeals are ordered by this Act to be as was directed by a former Act of the same Parliament An. 24 H. 8. By which Act where any Cause of the Law-Divine or Spiritual Learning hapned to come in question the Body-Spiritual of the Realm is declared to be Qualifyed and to have Power to determin it and therefore to them it must needs be meant to be left To return to our Matter again Since those Parliaments evidently knew their King was neither Bishop nor Priest which even in their Thoughts was the same as not to have Power to Act in Spiritual Things by our Saviour's immediate or mediate Supernatural Mission or which is the same thing by the Power of the Keys They evidently saw he neither had nor could have any Pastoral Power purely Spiritual much less the Supreme Power of that kind what-ever the Supremacy of that kind consists in Hence they could never intend to give him what they saw he could not have given to him nor signify any such Gift or Sense by their Words in the Act or Oath But only a Gift of the above-explicated Power arising from Nature and Reason A Legal Power to exercise which as a Governor they knew he might have from them and to say that they intended to flatter him with the Acknowledgment of a Power in him which they knew was not in him is a Fault that they cannot be prov'd Guilty of especially when we remember their Proviso And so according to the Axiom Every one is to be presumed Good till he be prov'd to be Bad they ought to be acquitted 23. Wherefore upon the whole it is many wayes evident that the Words in the Affirmative Part of the Oath cannot mean any thing but Supremacy of the Sword which whether in Temporal or Spiritual Things cannot be exercis'd but by Authority deriv'd from the King And this Supremacy is so evidently His that He needed not this Act for it He has it from God and Nature and as it is inseparable from the Crown alwayes had it even when Ecclesiastical Authority was at the Highest For though the Bishops claim'd an Independent Power of their own yet as Things do not cease to be by not being acknowledged They truly acted under him and in vertue of his Allowance and subject to his Controll When-ever he pleased to interpose as the Statutes of Mortmain Provisions Premunire and the rest made in Catholick Times shew he often did His Pleasure and Laws carry'd it notwithstanding their Pretences 24. That they did mean only thus is beyond all doubt apparent by all manner of wayes by which any thing can appear And though what hath been already said out of the Oath it self and all the Acts which are any way ordered to Establish the Duties to be acknowledg'd by it seem to force a Perswasion that only Royal Power is required to be own'd by the Affirmative Clause I cannot leave this Part till I put the Reader in mind lest he should suspect these Reasons Fallacious as seeming good Ones only to my self how both Learned Protestants and the Protestant-Church understand this to be the Sense of it I alledge then that all Protestant Authors not one I think excepted agree That 't is not the Power of the Keys but of the Sword which is in the King I could name several but chuse to mention only Doctor Bramhal late Arch-Bishop of Armagh because no Body speaks or I think can speak plainer And what he sayes I take to be the Sense of the Church of England his Works being very lately Reprinted in one Volume Dedicated by the Bishop of Limric to the Arch-Bishop of Dublin In his Schism Garded p. 311 312. speaking of this Act he sayes thus In a Word there is no Power ascribed to our King but meerly Political and Coactive to see that all their Subjects do their Duties in their several Places Coactive Power is one of the Keys of the Kingdom of this World it is none of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven This might have been exprest in Words less subject to Exception but the Case is clear 25. Next The 37. Article of the Church of England Where we attribute to the King's Majesty the Chief Government We give not to