Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	good_a	king_n	law_n	5,568	5	4.7787	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A04250	A remonstrance of the most gratious King Iames I. King of Great Britaine, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, &c. For the right of kings, and the independance of their crownes. Against an oration of the most illustrious Card. of Perron, pronounced in the chamber of the third estate. Ian. 15. 1615. Translated out of his Maiesties French copie.; Declaration du serenissime Roy Jaques I. Roy de la Grand' Bretaigne France et Irlande, defenseur de la foy. English	James I, King of England, 1566-1625.; Betts, Richard, 1552-1619.	1616 (1616)	STC 14369; ESTC S107609	113,081	306

sucked of the Churches breasts And as for the greatnesse of the sinne or offence it seemes to me there is very little difference in the matter For a Prince that neuer did sweare any religious obedience to Iesus Christ is bound no lesse to such obedience then if he had taken a solemne oath As the sonne that rebelliously stands vp against his father is in equall degree of sinne whether he hath sworn or not sworn obedience to his father because hee is bound to such obedience not by any voluntarie contract or couenant but by the law of Nature The commaundement of God to kisse the Sonne whom the Father hath confirmed and ratified King of Kings doth equally bind all Kings as wel Pagans as Christians On the other side who denies who doubts that Constantius Emperour at his first steppe or entrance into the Empire did not sweare and bind himselfe by solemne vowe to keepe the rules and to maintaine the precepts of the Orthodox faith or that he did not receiue his fathers Empire vpon such condition This notwithstanding the Bishop of Rome pulled not Constantius from his Imperial throne but Constantius remooued the Bishop of Rome from his Papall See And were it so that an oath taken by a King at his consecration and after violated is a sufficient cause for the Pope to depose an Apostate or hereticall Prince then by good consequence the Pope may in like sort depose a King who beeing neither dead in Apostasie nor sicke of heresie doth neglect onely the due administration of iustice to his loyall subiects For his oath taken at consecration importeth likewise that he shall minister iustice to his people A point wherein the holy Father is held short by the L. Cardinall who dares prescribe new lawes to the Pope and presumes to limit his fulnesse of power within certaine meeres and head-lands extending the Popes power only to the deposing of Christian Kings when they turne Apostats forsaking the Catholike faith and not such Princes as neuer breathed any thing but pure Paganisme and neuer serued vnder the colours of Iesus Christ Meane while his Lordship forgets that King Attabaliba was deposed by the Pope from his Kingdome of Peru and the said Kingdome was conferred vpon the King of Spaine though the said poore King of Peru neuer forsook his heathen superstition and though the turning of him out of his terrestrial Kingdome was no way to conuert him vnto the faith of Christ Yea his Lordship a little after telleth vs himselfe that Be the Turkes possession in the conquests that hee maketh ouer Christians neuer so auncient yet by no long tract of time whatsoeuer can he gaine so much as a thumbes breadth of prescription that is to say the Turke for all that is but a disseisor one that violently and wilfully keeps an other man from his owne and by good right may be dispossessed of the same whereas notwithstanding the Turkish Emperours neuer fauoured nor sauoured Christianitie Let vs runne ouer the examples of Kings whome the Pope hath dared and presumed to depose and hardly will any one be found of whome it may be truely auouched that he hath taken an oath contrary to his oath of subiection to Iesus Christ or that hee hath wilfully cast himselfe into Apostaticall defection And certes to any man that weighs the matter with due consideration it will be found apparantly false that Kings of France haue been receiued of their subiects at any time with condition to serue Iesus Christ They were actually Kings before they came foorth to the solemnity of their sacring before they vsed any stipulation or promise to their subiects For in hereditary Kingdomes nothing more certain nothing more vncontroulable the Kings death instantly maketh liuery and seisin of the Royalty to his next successor Nor is it materiall to reply that a King succeeding by right of inheritance takes an oath in the person of his predecessor For euery oath is personall proper to the person by whom it is taken and to God no liuing creature can sweare that his owne sonne or his heire shall prooue an honest man Well may the father and with great solemnitie promise that he will exhort his heire apparant with all his power and the best of his endeauours to feare God and to practise pietie If the fathers oath be agreeable to the duties of godlines the sonne is bound thereby whether he take an oath or take none On the other side if the fathers oath come from the puddles of impietie the sonne is bound thereby to goe the contrarie way If the fathers oath concerne things of indifferent nature and such as by the varietie or change of times become either pernicious or impossible then it is free for the Kings next successor and heire prudently to fit and proportion his lawes vnto the times present and to the best benefit of the Commonwealth When I call these things to mind with some attention I am out of all doubt his Lordship is very much to seek in the right sense and nature of his Kings oath taken at his Coronation to defend the Church and to perseuere in the Catholike faith For what is more vnlike and lesse credible then this conceit that after Clouis had raigned 15. yeeres in the state of Paganisme and then receiued holy Baptisme he should become Christian vpon this condition That in case hee should afterward revolt from the faith it should then bee in the power of the Church to turne him out of his Kingdome But had any such conditionall stipulation beene made by Clouis in very good earnest and truth yet would hee neuer haue intended that his deposing should be the act of the Romane Bishop but rather of those whether Peeres or people or whole body of the State by whom he had been aduanced to the Kingdome Let vs heare the truth and this is the truth It is farre from the customarie vse in France for their Kings to take any such oath or to vse any such stipulation with their subiects If any King or Prince wheresoeuer doth vse an oath or solemne promise in these expresse tearmes Let mee loose my Kingdome or my life be that day my last both for life and raigne when I shall first reuolt from the Christian religion by these words he calleth vpon God for vengeance he vseth imprecation against his owne head but he makes not his Crowne to stoope by this meanes to any power in the Pope or in the Church or in the people And touching inscriptions vpon coines of which point his Lordship speaketh by the way verily the nature of the money or coine the stamping and minting whereof is one of the markes of the Prince his dignity and Soueraignty is not changed by bearing the letters of Christs name on the reuerse or on the front Such characters of Christs name are aduertisements and instructions to the people that in shewing and yeelding obedience vnto the King they are obedient vnto Christ

and those Princes likewise who are so well aduised to haue the most sacred names inscribed and printed in their coines doe take and acknowledge Iesus Christ for supreame King of Kings The said holy characters are no representation or profession that any Kings Crown dependeth vpon the Church or can be taken away by the Pope The L. Cardinal indeed so beareth vs in hand But he inuerts the words of Iesus Christ and wrings them out of the right ioynt For Christ without all ambiguity and circumlocution by the image and inscription of the money doth directly and expressely prooue Caesar to be free from subiection and intirely Soueraigne Now if such a supreme and Soueraigne Prince at any time shal bandie and combine against God and thereby shall become a rebellious and perfidious Prince doubtlesse for such disloyalty he shall deserue that God would take from him all hope of life eternall and yet hereby neither Pope nor people hath reason to be puft vp in their power to depriue him of his temporall Kingdome The L. Cardinal saith besides The champions of the Popes power to depose Kings doe expound that commandement of S. Paul whereby euery soule is made subiect vnto the superiour powers to be a prouisionall precept or caution accommodated to the times and to stand in force only vntill the Church was growne in strength vnto such a scantling that it might be in the power of the faithfull without shaking the pillars of Christian state to stand in the breach and cautelously to prouide that none but Christian Princes might be receiued according to the Law in Deut. Thou shalt make thee a King frō among thy brethren The reason whereupon they ground is this Because Paul saith It is a shame for Christians to bee iudged vnder vniust Infidels in matters or busines which they had one against an other For which inconuenience Iustinian after prouided by Lawe when he ordained that no Infidell nor heretike might be admitted to the administration of iustice in the Commonwealth In which words of the Cardinall the word Receiued is to be obserued especially and aboue the rest For by chopping in that word he doth nimbly and with a trick of legier-de-main transforme or change the very state of the question For the question or issue of the cause is not about receiuing establishing or choosing a Prince as in those Nations where the Kingdome goes by election but about doing homage to the Prince when God hath setled him in the Kingdome and hath cast it vpon a Prince by hereditary succession For that which is written Thou shalt make thee a King doth no way concerne and touch the people of France in these dayes because the making of their King hath not of long time been tyed to their election The passage therefore in Deuteron makes nothing to the purpose no more then doth Iustinians law For it is our free and voluntary confession that a Christian Prince is to haue speciall care of the Laws and to prouide that no vnbeleeuer be made Lord Cheife-Iustice of the Land that no Infidell be put in trust with administration of iustice to the people But here the issue doth not direct vs to speake of Delegates of subordinate Magistrates and such as are in Commission from the Prince but of the supreame Prince himselfe the Soueraigne Magistrate ordained by nature and confirmed by succession Our question is whether such a Prince can be vnthroned by the Pope by whom he was not placed in the Throne and whether the Pope can despoile such a Prince of that Royaltie which was neuer giuen him by the Pope vnder any pretended colour and imputation of heresie of stupiditie or infringing the priuiledges of Monasteries or transgressing the lawes and lines of holy matrimonie Now that Saint Pauls commandement which bindeth euery soule in the bands of subiection vnto the higher powers is no precept giuen by way of prouiso and onely to serue the times but a standing and a perpetuall rule it is hereby more then manifest S. Paul hath grounded this commandement vpon certaine reasons not only constant and permanent by their proper nature but likewise necessary for euery state condition and revolution of the times His reasons Because all powers are ordained of God because resisting of powers is resisting the ordinance of God because the Magistrate beares the sword to execute iustice because obedience and subiection to the Magistrate is necessary not onely for feare of his wrath or feare of punishment but also for conscience sake It is therefore a case grounded vpon conscience it is not a law deuised by humane wisedome it is not fashionable to the qualities of the times Apostolicall instructions for the right informing of manners are not changeable according to times and seasons To vse the L. Cardinals language and to followe his fancie in the matter is to make way for two pestiferous mischeifes First let it be free and lawfull for Christians to hold the commanding rules of God for prouisionall cautions and what followes Men are lead into the broad way of impietie and the whole Scripture is wiped of all authority Then againe for the other mischeife The glorious triumphs of most blessed Martyrs in their vnspeakeable torments and sufferings by the L. Cardinalls position shall be iudged vnworthy to weare the title and Crown of Martyrdom How so Because according to his new fiction they haue giuen place to the violence and fury of heathen Magistrates not in obedience to the necessary and certaine commaundement of God but rather to a prouisionall direction accommodated to the humours of the times And therefore the L. Cardinall hath vsed none other clay wherewith to dawbe ouer his deuise but plaine falsification of holy Scripture For he makes the Apostle say to the Corinthians It is a shame for Christians to be iudged vnder vnbeleeuing Magistrates whereas in that whole context of Paul there is no such matter For when the Apostle saith I speake it euen to your shame hee doth not say it is a shame for a beleeuer to be iudged vnder an Infidel but he makes thē ashamed of their vngodly course and vnchristian practise that in suing and impleading one an other they laid their actions of contention in the Courts of vnbeleeuing Iudges The shame was not in bearing that yoke which God had charged their necks withall but in deuouring and eating vp one an other with writs of habeas corpus and with other processes as also in vncouering the shame in laying open the shamefull parts and prankes played by Christians before Infidels to the great scandall of the Church Here I say the L. Cardinall is taken in a tricke of manifest falsification If therefore a King when hee falls to play the heretike deserueth to be deposed why shall not a Cardinall when hee falls to play the iuggler with holy Scripture deserue to be disrobed Meane while the indifferent Reader is to consider how greatly this doctrine is preiudiciall and how