Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	chief_a	judge_n	lord_n	8,512	5	4.2435	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A70272	A free discourse wherein the doctrines which make for tyranny are display'd the title of our rightful and lawful King William vindicated, and the unreasonableness and mischievous tendency of the odious distinction of a king de facto, and de jure, discover'd / by a Person of Honour.	Person of honour.; Defoe, Daniel, 1661?-1731.; Howard, Robert, Sir, 1626-1698.	1697 (1697)	Wing H2995A; ESTC R10075	41,911	132

because it lessens the Honour of the King it draws King WILLIAM's Picture too like that of King James there 's Difference enough let but an ordinary Painter have the Shadowing it between a Tyrant that will not be limited by Law and a Rightful King who pretends to no Power but what the Law gives him Between the sternness of the one awing the Poor Scholars of Maudlin and the Martial heat of the other forcing proud Boufflers out of Namur It ought not to be forgot that this DE FACTO injury to King WILLIAM's Honour is an instance of unparalell'd ingratitude for he ventur'd Life and Fortunes for the Deliverance of our enthrall'd Nation and that upon the humble requests of the Chief of those very Men who now requite him with this Wicked Shameful and Ingrateful Distinction One would think it was not politickly done of them as it is plain was not done honestly for who would serve their interest another time if this be their way of Testifying their Sense of the Obligation They are a Generation difficult and hard to be pleas'd and possibly it were easier to teach them their Duty and make them Subscribe to RIGHTFUL AND LAWFUL KING than to gratifie all their Pretensions for whether they know it or no the honest English Men who were enough to carry it for the Election of King WILLIAM to supply the vacant Throne are enough to defend his Right and establish his Throne maugre all their restless endeavours to supplant him II. As their malevolent distinction lessens the honour of the King so it weakens the Government Unto a King DE FACTO only there is no esteem no Thanks no Allegiance due We may admire a difficult and great Atchievment but it must be a Vertuous Honest and Beneficent which wins our Esteem and Love we must be the better for it if it deserves our thanks we must have paid our thanks in giving the Hero the Right of a King or he can have no just claim to our Allegiance Some Men teach and pretend the Authority of the Church of England for it but therein they wrong their holy Mother that Allegiance is due to successful Usurpers and that Providence together with success grants them that Authority which the People ought to obey for Conscience sake When an unhappy interest with-holds us from professing our assent to an evident Truth we are many times tempted to profess and defend an evident and shameful untruth So it is in the case before us The De facto Men refusing to own the rightful and lawful Title of King WILLIAM are forc'd to say that Allegiance is due to Usurpers for well they know should they pursue their Principle as far as it would carry them they could have no pretence at all to his protection besides open and declar'd enmity against the Government under King WILLIAM's Administration was too much in all conscience to be endur'd Hence they found it requisite to labour to perswade the King that they were oblig'd to obey him tho' he had no right to govern them 'T was a strange Paradox this so very strange that had they not been endued with the uncommon wit and bouldness of guilding and varnishing it at the expence of the honour of God Almighty they had made bold with the honour of the King to very little purpose But it is my business to wash off the guilt and varnish and show the odd Paradox naked that no Consciencious weak mind be cheated thereby hereafter They would perswade the King that they were oblig'd to obey him tho' he had no right to govern them This is pretended first to have been the Opinion of some of the best Lawyers of former days and Instance is offer'd in Sir Edw. Coke the Judges in Baggett's Case the Lord Chief Justice Hales and the Lord Chief Baron Bridgman But the Lord Chief Justice Hales for what he says quotes Sir Ed. Coke only against Sir Edw. Coke's Authority many things are obvious besides that it stands singly on Baggett's Case the Parliament Roll recited in that Case is pointed directly against what Sir Edw. Coke is suppos'd to have asserted Lord Chief Baron Bridgman has said nothing in favour but much against the Paradox For a fair and full illustration of these particulars I refer to the Review of Dr. Sherlock 's Case of Allegiance Printed in the Year 1691. As our Law is not chargeable with so foolish and unrighteous an injunction as that which requires obedience to Kings in possession Kings falsely so call'd who have no right to govern so much less is it to be defended from the words of Holy Scripture But as it sometimes happens in other Cases so in this where Men have the least reason for it there they put the greatest trust There is not a Text in the Bible which commands Obedience to Tyrants or Usurpers The Scope of the places and the evident reason of things all along evinces that the Kings Magistrates and other Superiours whom we are commanded to obey have a lawful Authority to govern Yet by artifice and dextrous shifting the Sails our De facto Men hope to weather the point Their method is to refer all events to the over-ruling disposals of Providence so as if Providence left nothing to the free will of Man Indeed if it were the positive Will of God that Ambitious Men should grasp Sceptres and Arbitrarily Lord it over cheated or conquer'd People then we ought to obey Tyrants and Usurpers for Conscience-sake but then the Argument would prove too much for such Ambitious Men being the Ministers of God's Providence and executing only what he would have them they ought not to be called Tyrants and Usurpers they have according to this reasoning from Providence a lawful Tittle But the Sophistry in this way of arguing from Providence is plainly discover'd and refuted by distinguishing between the Will and the Permission of God Almighty When those things that ought to be done and which are just and good are done then the Will of God is complied with when contrary things are done then the Will of God is resisted and oppos'd for as Dr. Sherlock has excellently observ'd We are to learn our duty from the law of God not from his Providence the Providence of God will never justify any action which his Law forbids Let me add nor can we without the highest impiety ascribe an unlawful action to his over-ruling influence he does not so much as give leave to the attempts of Ambitious Men he is not pleas'd with Usurpation and Tyranny and therefore it is impossible for him to require that Obedience be paid to Usurpers and Tyrants God for many wise Reasons permits the Affairs of the World to go on as they are mov'd by the force of Natural Causes thence it comes to pass that Craft and Cruelty often prevail over Right and Innocence But God has not made the misfortunes of honest Men their Duty neither Reason nor Revelation forecloses them from

August Assembly presently cheerfully subscrib'd the Association wherein after they Sincerely and Solemnly Profess Testifie and declare That his present Majesty King WILLIAM is Rightful and Lawful King of these Realms they mutually promise and engage to stand by and assist each other to the utmost of their Power in the support and defence of his Majesties most Sacred Person and Government against the late King James and his Adherents Further they oblige themselves if the King should come to any violent and untimely death which God forbid to revenge the same on his Enemies and their Adherents Lastly To support the Succession of the Crown according to an Act made in the First Year of KING WILLIAM and QUEEN MARY The House of Lords also moved by the same amazing occasion as the Commons damn'd the Mischievous distinction DE FACTO and DE IVRE declaring that His present Majesty King WILLIAM hath A Right by Law to the Crown which Words one might be afraid of but that their Lordships ever Honourable and Sincere took care to secure them from Exception by the next Plain Righteous and Decretory Sentence And that neither the late King James nor the pretended Prince of Wales nor any other Person hath any right whatsoever to the same I can't see wherein this Declaration comes short of that of the House of Commons for here the Lords determine that King WILLIAM hath a Right by Law to the Crown and such a Right by Law that neither the late King nor the pretended Prince of Wales nor any other Person hath any Right whatsoever to the same then of Consequence He hath all the right to the Crown that can be all the right that ever Prince had or can have And is in their Lordships Judgments what the Commons have declar'd him Viz. our Rightful and Lawful King I am glad the Houses are so well agreed But alas neither has their happy Agreement nor the following hearty and just Votes of the Commons carried the Association of the Commons thro' the Kingdom with that success as might have been expected and as was due to so well advised a Sanction for the Publick good The reason of which disappointment I cannot imagine for I hope that Commoner's Chaplain was not in the right who openly told an Acquaintance that the Penalties inforcing the Association were only In terrorem But as if he had been able to give the Refusers Security many stood off and began to frame Exceptions against it To pass by the little Cavils and impertient Sarcasms started by vain and unquiet Men who are proud to tell the World with what unfair Equivocation they swallow'd the Oaths of Allegiance and consonant to that Scandalous Wickedness will affix a sense of their own devising to the Parliament Association or else Associate in a cold empty Form of their own drawing up to pass by every thing of this nature I shall only reflect on the grand Exception which is so common in the mouths of all the De facto Men. And that is this They have as their bounden duty does require that awful regard for the Divine Prohibition of Revenge that they can by no means agree to oblige themselves to revenge the King 's violent death upon his Treacherous Enemies To this I have several things to reply 1. Tho' with some Men the Blood of a King is so cheap that it may be spilt like Water on the Ground and they never trouble their hearts about it Yet I make no question but were it the Blood but of an Arch-Bishop of St. Andrew they would be very active to hunt the Murtherers from their Coverts and bring them to condign Punishment That these words may not be wrested I do avow that it was a necessary piece of Justice the Punishment of that Arch-Bishop's Murtherers But I argue a fortiori how necessary then is it to punish Wicked Regicides II. when a Noble Peer is impeach'd in Parliament for High-Treason the Lords Spiritual pretend to a Right of Siting and Voting among his Judges so that Clergy-Men are not willing to be wholly Sequestred from their share in legal Revenges III. When the House of Commons declar'd upon the occasion of the Popish Plot discover'd by Doctor Oates that if His Majesty King Charles that then was should come to any violent Death which they pray'd God to prevent tho' as 't is thought they were not heard they would revenge it to the utmost on the Papists None of this Clan of Non-Associators bawl'd against that Vote as unchristian and yet I do not see but King WILLIAM's Life is as precious and ought to be as dear to the Nation as ever King Charles's was besides I perswade my self that popish Assassines deserve not to be more severely treated than than any other Assassines IV. When any private Person unites with the House of Commons to revenge the Violent death of the King which God prevent he unites with the Representatives of the Body of the People for the just Execution of a legal Revenge V. He that is not willing to do his part towards the bringing the Assassines of the King to suffer the Law may be justly suspected as an Abettor of the Assassination if such a thing should happen which God prevent and if he be treated accordingly he is not worse treated than the old Lady Lisle VI. In a state of Nature every Man has a Right to preserve all his honest Interests against the Injuries of others and to punish such Injuries according as he judges they deserve to be punish'd In political Society every Man resigns up this natural right to the Community who intrust some chosen Man or Men to govern them by setled Laws made with their own Consent Now if wicked Assassines shall traiterously take off the chief Head or Heads that govern and so reduce the People to the unhappy Necessity of a new Choice from whence may arise infinite Mischiefs by Reason of the Differences of ambitious Pretenders the People seem reduc'd to a state of Nature and then every particular individual Person has a Right to be reveng'd of the Assassines It is true the English Government is Hereditary and by Act of Parliament setled after the Death or demise of King William on the Princess Ann and the Heirs of her Body but then there is Danger that Jacobite Zeal may wade thro' more Blood to make a clear Vacancy for a Royal Abdicator and if so there 's Reason for every true Englishman by the Parliaments Association to denounce Vengeance against the Assassines but the single loss of King William alone by violent sudden Treachery might chance to throw us into those Confusions that it is just and prudent to associate to be aveng'd of them that shall tear that dear Interest from us VII Let who will refuse the Association yet it is honestly and wisely done of them who enter into it for thereby they not only discharge the Duty which they owe to the King but also do

as under a Power limited by those Laws which they themselves had a share in making In short if this be good Reasoning he that fills a Throne tho' he has no right to fill it does by filling it give Protection to the People and by governing them without their Consent bestows a Benefit upon them in return for which they are oblig'd to obey him Then Thieves that break open a House and spare the Lives of the Family may be said to give them Protection and in disposing the Goods at their own Pleasure to bestow a Benefit on the true Owners and what the Owners suffer under such a Terror may be called Obedience Nay according to these Measures the Man that is hang'd may be said to pay Obedience and he that trusses him up right or wrong is his Ruler De Facto The Preachers of Passive Obedience made it their Business to abuse the People with a very pernicious false Doctrine but they gave it a proper agreeable and true Name for the plain signification of Passive Obedience is Suffering Actual Suffering Irremediable Suffering With a bareface it teaches that if we receive no manner of Protection or Benefit by the Laws of the Land but on the contrary are depriv'd of our Liberties and Properties yet we must submit and suffer But the Authors of the Argument which I am reproving are pleas'd to call Suffering Obedience the one would enslave us by a confident belying of Religion the other by a subtle misuse of seeming Reason I have prov'd in General that the distinction of a King De Jure and De Facto as applied to King William weakens the Government I will now exemplisy the same in some Particulars I. They that do not believe King William to be their King De Jure i. e. their True and Lawful King are not like to bear true Faith and Allegiance to him They have no Motive no Temptation to induce them If they bear true Faith and Allegiance to a King in their Opinion an Usurper they must contradict the Principles which God and Nature have implanted in them they must cross their own present Inclinations without the Prospect of a future Advantage It is as much as ever our Preachers can do to keep Men from indulging their present Inclinations by the Hopes of a Recompence hereafter but 't would puzzle all their Eloquence to persuade them to this when the Instance is not a moral Action fit to be done nor any thing to be got by it The wonderful and unreasonable Confidence of those Jacobizing Authors who would persuade their Readers that Allegiance ought to be paid to a King whom they believe to have no Right to require it made me with a strict Thoughtfulness consider on what Bottom they could pretend to ground the Obligation but Bottom could I find none save that from the Christian Precept of loving Enemies a merry Man might make a Jest on 't By the way this most difficult of Christian Precepts had been recommended to the World before our Blessed Master's Time by wise Heathens Grotius in his Book De Ver. Rel. Christianae quotes several but no wise Heathen or Christian ever explain'd that Precept so far as to exact the Payment of good Offices to an Enemy at the Expence of the just Rights of a Friend or Allegiance to an arbitrary King in Possession to the Wrong of the lawful King unhappily dispossess'd And I am Opinion that the Consideration of this or a less justifiable cause mov'd a good Doctor to mince the matter thus It is our Duty to pray for the King in Possession while we take care to do it in such terms as not to pray against the dispossess'd Prince Which is as much as to say We may pray that God would do such a King some small Personal Kindnesses or so but not to discomfit his Enemies or establish his Throne and this justifies my Position That they who do not believe King William to be their King De Jure are not like to bear him true Faith and Allegiance we have but too long seen the Effects of the Doctor 's Caution one while many were contented to pray for King William only from the Desk in appointed Forms they abstain'd from mentioning his Name in the Pulpit the most thought it enough in General Terms to pray God to be Gracious to King William not one of a hundred at this Day dares pronounce him Rightful and Lawful King they will 't is true not grudge to call him the King that God has set over them but that 's an oblique Reflexion for the same is their Phrase also for an Usurper The questioning King William's Title was always the profess'd Cause of the Refusal of Swearing to bear Faith and true Allegiance to him Indeed the above mention'd Doctor was pleas'd to tell the Nation That he did not refuse the Oaths out of any Fondness for the Government of King James nor Zeal for his Return But I am confident he did not refuse them out of any Persuasion of the Right of King William nor Zeal for his Establishment in Truth his Refusal of the Oaths was a plain Declaration of his Sense against King William's Right but when he took the Oaths then to insinuate that King William had no Legal Right hic nigrae succus soliginis haec est aerugo mera Yet this Doctor is a Saint in Comparison with that Loyal Rector who essay'd to prove that notwithstanding his Oath to King William and Queen Mary he had not put himself out of a Capacity to perform what he swore to the late King Which makes it plain that they who are not persuaded of King William's Rightful Title cannot be willing to give him no not their Oaths unless it be for the better Opportunity to betray him In short I would sooner hope to find an Atheist zealous to promote the practise of Vertue and Piety than that the Government under King William should be rightly serv'd by those that are persuaded of the Right of the late King When the late King sent Forces against the late Duke of Monmouth he was in the right not to put his trust in the County Troops for he look'd upon many of them to have no opinion of his Title but rather to think well of the cause of the Invader 'T is the ordinary Policy of every Tyrant to oppress his own People with Mercenary Foreigners or such Subjects of his own as are Souldiers who have nothing but Fortune and his Bounty to trust to 't were as foolish to go about to suppress them by other Instruments as 't is wicked to oppress them at all Perhaps a hungry Lawyer may plead for his Fee against his Conscience but a lover of his Country will not be the Chief Justice of an Arbitrary Monarch II. They that do not believe King WILLIAM to be their Righful and Lawful King are bound in Conscience to endeavour to dispossess him I know there be some Casuists who contend