Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	henry_n	king_n	law_n	2,736	5	4.6988	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49115	A full answer to all the popular objections that have yet appear'd, for not taking the oath of allegiance to their present Majesties particularly offer'd to the consideration of all such of the divines of the Church of England (and others) as are yet unsatisfied : shewing, both from Scripture and the laws of the land, the reasonableness thereof, and the ruining consequences, both to the nation and themselves, if not complied with / by a divine of the Church of England, and author of a late treatise entituled, A resolution of certain queries, concerning submission to the present government.	Long, Thomas, 1621-1707.	1689 (1689)	Wing L2967; ESTC R19546	65,688	90

the Election of Sheriffs and anciently the disposing of the Militia and many great Offices both by Sea and Land and the Judicial part was left to the King confined by certain Methods the King in Person not being able to decide the least Cause 3. I thus except against the Minor. The subjection required in the Text is due to the King's Person for the sake of the Power and therefore is not to be extended farther than the Power wherewith he is invested and with a Salvo to that part of the Power which is vested in another so that we owed no such subjection to King James as did derogate from anothers Right beyond the extent of his own Power which was not absolute but limited by Law. And let this be considered from the Objection Those actions which will produce mischeivous consequences should not be ingaged in without most clear evidence of being our duty But to refuse Submission to the present Government will produce c. therefore they are not to be ingaged in without most clear evidence which as things now stand cannot be accounted clear and undubetable in relation to King James Object 2. The King can do no wrong and therefore is not to be dealt with as a Malefactor Ans As to your Maxim The King can do no wrong if it be understood of the King 's private or personal capacity it may be thus retorted The King can do no wrong but he that oppresseth ravisheth or murders an innocent person doth wrong therefore he is not King i. e. in such actions he is not to be considered as a King. But this Maxim as many others is to be understood of the King 's political capacity in which respect the Law is his Will and the execution of the Laws are his Actions in which sence he can neither do wrong nor suffer wrong nor ever dyes The true sence of the Maxim is this as Sir Edw. Cooke Id potest quod jure potest and this he says is the King 's greatest priviledge which makes him like unto God who cannot act but agreeably to the eternal Rules of Justice but the King acting by his own Will against Law may do wrong and Judgment hath been given against him for unjust and illegal Actions And doubtless King John and Henry the Third that would have subjected the Kingdom to the Pope as King James also would cannot be exempted from doing wrong though as it was necessary he must use many Instruments therein Ahab did wrong Naboth in taking away his Vineyard as well as his Instruments that did act under colour of Law. Object 3. That King that is not accountable to his people for any wrong done is not by them Coercible into a private estate but the King of England is not accountable c. therefore he is not Coercible Ans The Argument is besides the Business for the People of England do not Coerce the King to a private Estate but if he attempt to alter the Government and Religion and enslave and destroy the People they may use the remedy which the Law of Nature allows Moderamen inculpatae tutelae The Law not having appointed a legal remedy against the unjust oppressions of Princes doth not render it sinful to use the remedies allowed by the Law of Nature for the Laws grew up gradually and legal remedies were introduc'd occasionally before the institution of which remedies it was not sinful to use extraordinary remedies as to kill se defendendo to pull down Houses in case of Fire c. 2. The Law provides remedies for cases within its own compass but not for cases that may happen when the Law itself shall be subverted it is unreasonable to expect from written Laws any directions how Subjects must behave themselves when the authority of the Laws ceaseth If our Laws have not provided for the cases of the King's Lunacy Extinction of the Royal Line wilful Desertion doubtfulness of Title c. but leave us to the general Rules of Prudence and Discretion the same may be affirmed in the present case 3. What is not prohibited is lawful the cases of extraordinary nature are not included in general Prohibitions according to that Maxim Consensus in rebus magni prejudicii ex verbiis quantumvis generalibus non presumitur And Concessione generali nemo presumitur ea concessisse quae in specie vere similiter non esset concessurus And it cannot be presum'd that the Law would consent that the King might at his pleasure destroy their Lives as well as their Laws considering how tender the Laws have been to preserve the Lives and Liberties of the Subjects who have been always accounted a free People Object 4. If the whole Executive Power of the Law is in the King then all Laws to Coerce the King are in effect null because Execution is the life of the Law But the whole Executive Power c. therefore c. To the minor it is already shewn in what cases and respects the Executive Power of the Law is in the People and in other cases the King cannot suspend the Execution of the Laws by his personal Command the Officers being bound by their Oaths as well as Law to the due Execution of them So that if the King in person should make unlawful Entries hinder the Execution of Writs and Judgments break the Peace head a Riot c. Sheriffs and other Officers are bound to suppress and oppose such by their Oaths If it be objected that the case of the King's presence makes an exception I answer Neither the Oaths nor the Laws makes any such exception And ubi Lex non distinguit non est distinguendum Again the Defence made against the King's illegal Assaults is not an act of the Executive Power which is in the King but of Natural Right for in cases where the Law hath not provided a remedy and particularly and expresly prohibited Self-preservation there we may recur to natural and moral Remedies and every man is allowed to be his own Judge in case of imminent danger when there is no time allowed nor any Judge to be appealed to You say that if the King will pervert the great end for which he was appointed and pervert the Laws c. then as Bracton says Datur petitioni locus licet ei fraenum ponere i. e. as you expound it to curb him by Petitions with holding Taxes and questioning his Ministers there is no ense recidendum in our Law. Ans To curb by Petition is to bind with Ropes of Sand to question Ministers if the Executive Power be in the King is to no purpose and so to with-hold Taxes if the King in the head of an Army may compel them nor yet is there any need of deposing or cutting off for Henry 3. was not so dealt with If a King mix himself with Outlaws and Cut-throats against which we may and in some cases are bound to rise and expose himself to Casualties the people cannot

of him no Action lying against him 2. Omnipotence having power of Life and Death over all his Subjects whom he might command to serve in his Wars 3. Omniscience by his Intelligence at home and abroad 4. Majesty in that nothing could be taken from him and being an inviolable Majesty 5. Infinity and Ubiquity being present in all his Courts and in all places with all persons 6. Perpetuity in that the King never dies 7. Justice in that the King can do no wrong 8. Perfection in that he is never in Infancy hath no corruption of Bloud but the Crown assoils all Crimes 9. And Truth in that he cannot be estoped or presumed to declare a Falshood 10. And lastly Clemency in dispensing with Laws and pardoning Offenders Nor are some Statesmen much behind Hobs de Cive c. 12. s 1 2. says That the Rules of Good and Evil Just and Unjust Honest and Dishonest are the Civil Laws and therefore whatever the Legislator commands that is to be accounted good what he forbids is to be accounted evil and therefore it is a wicked Speech that Kings are not to be obeyed unless they command just things That before Empires were established there was no such thing as Just or Unjust whose natures are relative to a command and that every action is in its own nature indifferent and that it becomes Just or Unjust is from the Law of the Emperour wherefore those that are Emperours make things Just which they command to be done and those things Unjust which they forbid but private men that would assume to themselves the cognizance of Good and Evil do aspire to be like Kings which cannot consist with the safety of Government Such blasphemous and pestilential Doctrines would confound Heaven and Hell and turn Men into Devils and Order into Confusion The Doctrines of such as Sibthorp and Manwaring on these Principles might deserve to be consured for saying too little rather than too much and Nero Dioclesian and all other Tyrants be justified in all their Cruelties against innocent Christians This were not only to stamp a Divine Character on all Kings but to grant them a Divine Nature whose will is the only Law. Now although these venomous Eructations of an Atheistical Spirit have not poysoned many yet some have been infected by them and the Opinion of an Absolute and Arbitrary Power in the King which the late King challenged to himself prevailed with too many and the many Addresses made to him in compliance therewith and the Doctrine of Non-resistance and Passive Obedience made him presume of effecting that Design the effects whereof were seen and felt in this Nation and had not God in his great Mercy created an unexpected Deliverance for us our condition might by this time have been as deplorable as those of our Neighbouring Nations And now my Bretheren I hope that as none of you can approve of the King of France his Violation of his solemn and repeated Edicts on the behalf of his Protestant Subjects and of the barbarous Cruelty executed on his Loyal and Innocent Subjects to make them Proselites to his own Perswasion so neither can you approve of those Endeavours which tended to the same end which are less justifiable in our Case where the Protestant Religion is established by Law than where Popery was so settled Nor can I blame the Hollanders for shaking off that Iron Yoak which the House of Austria would have rivited on their Necks It will therefore be no disparagment to any person to pursue a melius Inquirendum on those Principles which he hath assumed I know my Bretheren will not account it so in any learned Papist or other Dissenter nor think it a shame to any such if upon better information he should alter his Judgment especially when he shall find that many serious learned and uninterested men do upon very probable Reasons differ from him I have therefore chosen to deal mostly on the Authorities of such Men being prevented by the Learned and Elegant Author of the Case of Allegiance in the Rhetorical and Rational part And having in some haste drawn up my former Treatise I desire the Reader to add these to their proper places And first to qualifie the extravagant Expressions of Finch I oppose the Judgment of Fortescue who fol. 25. says Ad hanc potestatem a populo effluxam Rex habet quo non licet ei alia potestate populo suo dominari principatu namque nedum Regali sed politico populo suo dominatur The King is to Govern his People by no other Power then that which flows from his People i. e. a Political not a Regal Power And p. 32. Ad tutelam legis subditorum Rex erectus est The King is set up for the Safeguard of his Subjects Laws To the Freaks of Hobs the Concessions of King Charles the First in answer to the nineteen Propositions may be a full Answer There being three kinds of Government Absolute Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy and all having particular Conveniencies and Inconveniencies The Experience and Wisdom of your Ancestors hath so moulded this out of a mixture of those as to give this Kingdom the Conveniencies of all three without the Inconveniencies of any one as long as the Ballance hangs even between the three Estates and they run joyntly in their proper Channels The ill of Absolute Monarchy is Tyranny of Aristocracy Faction and Division of Democracy Tumults Violence and Licentiousness The good of Monarchy is Uniting a Nation under one Head the good of Aristocracy is the conjunction of Counsel in the ablest persons for the Publick good the good of Democracy is Liberty and the Courage and Industry which Liberty begets The Lords being trusted with Judicatory Power are an excellent Screen and Bank between the Prince and the People by just Judgment to preserve the Law therefore the Power legally placed in both Houses is more than sufficient to prevent and restrain the Power of Tyranny and the Power of punishing is already in your hands according to Law. That Kings are bound by the Coronation-Oath we have the Acknowledgement of Edward the Third c. 15. declaring thus in Parliament We considering that by the Bond of our Oath we be tied to the Observance and Defence of such Laws c. King James the First speaks to the same purpose as King Charles the First did If says he we take the People as one Body or Mass then as the Head is ordained for the Body and not the Body for the Head so must a Righteous King know himself to be ordained for his People and not his People for him For though a King and his People be Relata yet can he be no King if he want People and Subjects Having met with two Discourses pertinent to the present Occasion in the Writings of Pufendorf a learned Civilian I have thought fit to translate them the Books being rarely in the hands of my Brethren The one describes the Nature of