Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
justice_n constable_n officer_n peace_n 4,647 5 6.0431 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
A34536 An enquiry into the oath required of non-conformists by an act made at Oxford wherein the true meaning of it, and the warrantableness of taking it, is considered / by John Corbett ... Corbet, John, 1620-1680. 1682 (1682) Wing C6254; ESTC R5701 7,310 22

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

AN ENQUIRY INTO THE OATH Required OF Non-Conformists By an ACT Made at OXFORD Wherein the True Meaning of IT and the Warrantableness of Taking it is Considered By JOHN CORBETT late Minister at Chichester LONDON Printed for Tho. Parkhurst at the Bible and three Crowns in Cheapside near Mercers Chappel 1682. An ENQUIRY into the OATH Required of NON-CONFORMISTS By an ACT made at OXFORD The OATH I A. B. do Swear that it is not Lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King and that I do abhor that Traiterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person or against those that are Commissionated by him in pursuance of such Commissions and that I will not at any time endeavour any Alteration of Government either in Church or State THE Interpretation of the Oath here given is not peremptorily determined but probably concluded and humbly proposed by the Inquirer to men of sober and Impartial Judgment in order to the clearing of his own Judgment and the settling of his own Conscience about this important Matter In Considering the Warrantableness of taking this Oath these two main things do necessarily come under consideration I. Whether the words do signifie a just and good meaning according to a Rational Interpretation II. Whether such just and good meaning was the very meaning of the Law-makers in the Enacting of this form of Words The First Inquiry is whether the Words do signifie a just and good meaning according to a Rational interpretation Now in the way of Rational Interpretation these things are to Observed 1. We must proceed no otherwise than the Words will bear in their ordinary signification For Words as taken in their common use are the first and most noted means of signifying the Mind of those that use them Therefore to force upon them a sense in it self Rational enough which is Alien from their ordinary signification is indeed Irrational 2. A Meaning which the Words taken by themselves may bear may not be rigidly insisted on against the intent of the Law For the Words of a Law are many times more rigorous than the intent nevertheless they are but subservient to it and may not be urged to the perverting of it 3. It is Rational to Interpret a Law if the Words will bear it in a sense agreeable to right Reason and Equity For by the Reverence that is due to Governours we are forbidden to put upon their Acts a sense repugnant to Reason and Equity unless that repugnancy be apparent 4. It is Rational to consider this Law not by it self alone but as it is a Law of this Realm and in Conjunctionwith the other Laws there of and consequently to interpret it farre as the Words will bear in a sense consistent with the constitution of the Realm and with the other Laws and with the ordinary legal Practice For the Law-makers must not be supposed to enact things inconsistent unless the inconsistency be manifest In this way of proceeding I come to consider the just and good meaning which the words of the injoyned do admit The First Part of the OATH I do Swear that it is not Lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King IN this part these or the like words I do hold or I do believe are necessarily and evidently to be understood For the thing that the Law seeks or aimes at is not the truth of the Proposition which is presupposed but the discovery of the swearers Judgment concerning it This may further appear from some other Act where the said Words are expressed in the like imposition I Swear that I hold it unlawful to take Arms against the King As for these words upon any pretence whatsoever they signifie no less than upon any cause or in any case whatsoever so that this Tenet as I apprehend is sworn to without any restriction or limitation But then it must be considered that these Words to take Arms against the King must be taken in their due and legal sense and so taken they import the resisting of the Soveraign Authority or the power ordained of God which is not Lawful upon any pretence whatsoever I know it is objected that some of the most eminent Assertors of the power of Princes as Grotius ` Barclay c. have Restrictions and Cases of Exception in this Point But I conceive that the objected Cases of Exception delivered by them are not properly Restrictions laid upon the Tenet but Explanations of its meaning that their Readers may not mistake some for delinquents against it who indeed are not such according to their Judgement The design of this part of the Oath is to Renounce all Rebellion and all resistance contrary to due Subjection as not to be justified upon any Cause or in any Case that may come to pass And its due legal meaning is Rationally conceived to be That it is not Lawful upon any pretence whatsoever for any of the King's Majesties Subjects to take Arms against his Person or Authority or any of his Rights and Dignities The Second Part of the OATH And that I do abhorre that Traiterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person or against those that are Commissionated by him in pursuance of such Commissions THE Position of taking Arms by the Kings Authority against his Person is justly to be disclaimed Though the King's Person and his Authority be distinct yet they are not separate The King's Authority is inherent in his Person and in no other Though it be exercised by an other during his Natural incapacity as in his infancy yet his Person alone is the proper Seat and Subject of it and that other exerciseth it only in his Name and as his Vicegerent Indeed sometimes an inferiour Authority as that of a Judge or Justice of Peace or Constable is called the King's Authority but in proper signification it is no more than the Authority of the said Officers derived from the King as the Fountain thereof Now it is most absurdly spoken or imagined that the King's Authority which is inherent in his Person only can be exerted in taking Arms against his Person Likewise it is as absurdly spoken or imagined that an Authority inherent in an other but derived from the King and dependent on him should be so exerted The following Words or against those that are Commissionated by him are most Rationally understood of those that are Legally Commissionated by him Likewise by pursuance of such Commissions is meant Legal Pursuance It cannot reasonably be supposed that a Law on the behalf of Persons Commissionated doth intend any other than such as are Commissionated not against but according to Law A Commission against Law is no Commission Wherefore Commissionated in this place is of the same import with authorized The Third Part of the OATH That I will not at any time endeavour any Alteration of Government either in Church or State I Confess that these Words I will