Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	great_a	king_n	lord_n	8,214	5	3.8032	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A52522	Wonderful predictions of Nostredamus, Grebner, David Pareus, and Antonius Torquatus wherein the grandeur of Their present Majesties, the happiness of England, and downfall of France and Rome, are plainly delineated : with a large preface, shewing, that the crown of England has been not obscurely foretold to Their Majesties William III and Mary, late Prince and Princess of Orange, and that the people of this ancient monarchy have duly contributed thereunto, in the present assembly of Lords and Commons, notwithstanding the objections of men and different extremes.	Atwood, William, d. 1705?; Grebner, Ezekiel.; Nostradamus, 1503-1566.; Pareus, David, 1548-1622.; Torquato, Antonio, 15th cent.	1689 (1689)	Wing N1401; ESTC R261	72,982	73

was left at large How much soever he might have strain'd in this or other Matters I am sure he was far from acting so arbitrarily as some have industriously represented him I will not say on purpose to encourage such Actions in other Princes And it is yet more certain that whatever Right either he or any body under him enjoy'd came from the Compact not from the Breach of Faith. 3. If William 1. did gain the Right of a Conqueror it was Personal and he never exacted this for his Heirs as appears not only by his Declaration when he came to die but by the Fealty or Oath of Allegiance which he required in his Laws The King's Oath is the real Contract on his side and his accepting the Government as a legal King the virtual one and so it is vice versâ in relation to the Allegiance due from the Subject Thus far the Author of Jovian is in the right As in the Oath of Allegiance the People swear nothing to the King but what they are bound to perform unsworn so the King in his Coronation-Oath promises nothing to the People but what in Justice and Equity he is bound ●o perform unsworn Upon which account I will yield to Saravias That in Hereditary Kingdoms the Coronation-Oath confers no new Right and therefore there may be a King before his Coronation Yet we must attend to Grotius his Rule who rightly observes That Succession is only a Continuance of that Power which the Predecessor had So that if the first Possessor comes into Power qualified by express Contract this binds the Successor and he is to be thought to come in upon those Terms The Description which Samuel made of the exorbitant Power of Kings was rather to terrifie them from pursuing their foolish Demand than to constitute such a Prerogative as the King should use whom God would appoint to go in and out before them Which methinks is very manifest in that the worst of Kings that ever reigned among them never challeng'd or assum'd those Prerogatives nor did the People conceive themselves liable to those Impositions as appears by the Application they made to Rehoboam on the Death of Solomon That he would abate some of that Rigour his Father had exercis'd toward them the rash rejection of which contrary to the Advice of his wisest Counsellors cost him the greater part of his Dominions and when Rehoboam would by Arms have reduc'd them to Obedience God would not suffer him because he had been in the fault himself One of the Terms as appears by the Mirrour was That the King should suffer Right or Justice as well as his Subjects And St. Edward's Sword called the Curtein carried before our Kings at their Coronations was in the time of H. 3. a known Emblem and Remembrancer of this But surely whoever us'd that or a Judicial Power in such Cases as above how much soever they continued their Allegiance to the King's Authority could not be said to retain it to his Person 2. There was and is an establish'd Judicature for the great Case in question as is imply'd by St. Edward's Laws which suppose some Judge or Judges in the Case and investing the Proceres with the Supreme Judicature with-holds not this from them However 't is certain the Parliament 9 R. 2. referr'd to a known Statute when they mind him of an ancient one not long before put in practice whereby if the King thro' a foolish Obstinacy contempt of his People or perverse froward Will or any other irregular way shall alienate himself from his People and will not be govern'd and regulated by the Rights of the Kingdom and the Statutes and laudable Ordinances made by the Council of the Lords and the Peers of the Realm but shall headily in his mad Counsels exercise his own arbitrary Will from thenceforth it is lawful for them with the common Assent and Consent of the People of the Realm to depose him from the Throne c. This Law is not now extant but was not then deny'd and the Reason why it is not to be found is very evident from the Articles against this King some Years after In the 24th Article they accuse him of causing the Rolls and Records concerning the State and Government of his Kingdom to be destroyed and rased to the great prejudice of the People and disherison of the Crown of the said Kingdom and this as is credibly believ'd in favour and support of his evil Governance The Mirror tells us That of right the King must have Companions to hear and determine in Parliament all Writs and Plaints of Wrong done by the King c. And the Learned Hornius cites the Speculum Saxonicum of the like Name and Nature with our Mirror the Author of which last was of his own Name The Saxon Mirror as he says was wrote before the Normans came hither The Justices or private Persons says he out of the Speculum neither ought nor can dispute of the Acts of Kings yet the King has Superiors in ruling the People who ought to put a Bridle to him And Hornius says the old Saxon Lawyers limit that Maxim The King has no Peer to wit in exhibiting Justice but in receiving Justice they say he is the least in his Kingdom Tho' Bracton seems to restrain this Rule to Cases wherein the King is Actor in judicio suscipiendo si petat Fleta who takes it from him seems to correct the Copy and has it si parcat If he spare doing Justice to which end both affirm that he was created and chosen King And Bracton himself shews elsewhere that he means more by the Reason which he assigns why the King ought to be the least in receiving Justice Lest his Power should remain without Bridle This for certain he sufficiently explains when he says That no Justices or private Persons may dispute of the King's Charters and Acts but Judgment must be given before the King himself which must be meant of the King in Parliament as appears by a Petition in Parliament 18 E. 1. where Bracton's Rule is received But Bracton says he has God for his Superior also the Law by which he is made King also his Court that is to say the Earls and Barons for they are called Comites being as it were Companions to the King and he who has a Companion has a Master Therefore if the King act without Bridle they are bound to bridle him and Bracton in one place says In receiving Justice the King is compar'd to the least of his Kingdom without confining it to Cases where he is Actor This puts a necessary Limitation to that Maxim That the King can do no Wrong that is not to be adjudg'd so by Judges Commissaries or Commission'd Judges which the Mirror uses in contradistinction to Judges Ordinary sitting by an Original Power yet this does not in the least

Right The Lords and Commons having a Judicial Power in this Matter as hath been prov'd at large their Exercise of this Power in the nature of the thing determines the Right unless an Appeal lies from them to some higher Court in this Nation But that no Power can legally question them or any of them in this Matter appears more particularly in that there is no Statute now in force nor was since the Death of Car. 2. which makes it Treason to conspire to Depose a King or actually to Depose him But this is of the Nature of those Common-Law Treasons which are left to the Judgment of Parliament And they who are the only Judges of their own Actions have a pretty large Liberty in them especially according to them who would infer the Absolute Power of Princes from the Supposition of no constituted Judges of their Actions Wherefore the Defence of their Proceedings might justly seem to be superseded were it not for an ungovernable sort of Men who either cannot or will not judge according to the Rules of right Reasoning but as they will hardly admit of any Doctrine as true for which they have not the Decision of some Father or Council will believe no Action not proceeding from their imperious Dictates justifiable even in Cases of the utmost necessity for the Preservation of the true Religion and just Laws for which they have no Warrant from the Examples of their Forefathers or Opinions of Men whose Books have past with their Allowance Which often drives me to the seeming Pedantry of Quotations to confirm the most obvious Considerations to which my own Thoughts led me The either open or more covert Matters of Fact inducing the Declaration of Lords and Commons That J. 2. has broken the Original Contract I need not now enquire into All People must own that 〈◊〉 if they in the least attend to the Constitution of our Governme●● and how apparently he by his general Dispensations usurp'd a Legislative Power for the Destruction of the Protestant Religion and Civil Rights which we were in a fair way of being Dragoon'd out of by a Standing Army by degrees to have been wholly under Popish or Complying Officers Yet if there were no more than his leaving the Kingdom without making any Provision for keeping up the Justice of it and going into France a Country from whence all Mischiefs have of late Years flow'd upon us and our Religion Who can deny but this alone would have been enough to set him aside The going out of the Realm without appointing a Custos was anciently in our Law a Discontinuance of Justice And the Lord Hobart gives it as a Maxim Cessa regnare si non vis judicare Cease to Reign if you will not Judge or maintain the Course of Justice Many I know upon these Questions rather regard the Civil Law and that I am sure gives a home-thrust in the Case of deserting one's Country and going into such an one as France is to our Nation tho' it has been in too strict Alliance with our Kings The Digests say A Deserter has no Right of being restor'd to his Country For he who left his Country with an evil and treacherous Mind is to be held as an Enemy c. But we are to take not only him for a Deserter who runs over to Enemies in time of War but also during a Truce Or who runs over to them with whom there is no Amity either after undertaking to be faithful to his Country or else undertaking to be faithful to the other Either of which Senses the Words will bear 'T is likely to be said That this out of the Civil Law is improperly applied to the Prince who according to that is exempt from all Laws But I would desire such to read the Rescript or Law of Theodosius and Valentinian wherein they thus declare 'T is an Expression suitatable to the Dignity of one that Reigns to profess himself bound by the Laws Our own Authority does so depend upon the Authority of Law. And in truth for the Governing Power to submit to Law is greater than Empire And by the Promulgation of this present Edict we make known to others what we will not allow to our selves That J. 2. had before his Departure broken the Fundamental Laws and that now he not only ceases to Protect but is in a Kingdom which foments and strengthens a Rebellion in Ireland part of the Dominions belonging to the English Crown I think no body will deny Nor till they can answer what I have shewn of the mutual Contract continued down from the first Erection of the Monarchy here ought they to deny that he has thereby broken the Original Contract which bound the People to him and him to them What results from this Breach is now more particularly to be considered That it is a Discharge from all Allegiance to him requir'd by any Law and confirm'd by any Oaths is evident not only from the former Authorities but from the Condition going along with such a mutual Contract as I have prov'd to be with us between Prince and People Or rather to use the Words of the Learned Pufendorf The Obligation is not so much dissolv'd as broken off by the Perfidiousness of either Party For when one does not perform that which was agreed on neither is the other bound to performance For the prior Heads of things to be perform'd in Contracts are in the Subsequent by way of Condition As if it should be said I will perform if you perform first This he more fully explains in another Book where he distinguishes between an Obligation imperfectly mutual as he supposes it to be between an Absolute Prince and his Subjects and one perfectly mutual as he takes it to be where the People have conferr'd a Power on any Terms Of such Obligations he says These since they have a mutual respect to the things agreed on and suppose mutual Faith it is evident that if one Party violate the Faith which he plighted the other is no more bound And therefore he is not perfidious who stands not to those Contracts which the other has broken For all the Heads of one and the same Contract run into each other by way of Condition c. And in that Book of his which is counted the Standard of the Law of Nations he asserts it to be lawful for Subjects to oppose their Prince by Force which is a sufficient departure from Allegiance if he goes about modum habendi potestatem immutare i. e. to change that Manner in which he by the Contract enjoys the Power from less to more Absolute And in his Tract de Interregnis cited above he allows of this If the King abdicate all Care of the Commonwealth becomes of an hostile Mind towards his Subjects or manifestly departs from those Rules of Governing upon the Observance of which as upon a Condition the