Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	judge_n	king_n	law_n	9,311	5	5.0328	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A89881	Interest will not lie. Or, a view of England's true interest: in reference to the [brace] papist, royalist, Presbyterian, baptised, neuter, Army, Parliament, City of London. In refutation of a treasonable pamphlet, entituled, The interest of England stated. Wherein the author of it pretends to discover a way, how to satisfie all parties before-mentioned, and provide for the publick good, by calling in the son of the late King, &c. Against whom it is here proved, that it is really the interest of every party (except only the papist) to keep him out: and whatever hath been objected by Mr. William Pryn, or other malcontents, in order to the restoring of that family, or against the legality of this Parliament's sitting, is here answer'd by arguments drawn from Mr Baxter's late book called A holy commonwealth, for the satisfaction of them of the Presbyterian way; and from writings of the most learned royalists, to convince those of the royal party. By Mar. Nedham.	Nedham, Marchamont, 1620-1678.	1659 (1659)	Wing N392; Thomason E763_5; ESTC R202968	47,454	45

Monarchy in his Book Contra Monarchomacos doth grant it onely he saith Vix videtur id accidere posse in Rege meni is compote It seems almost impossible a King should be so mad as to proceed on that manner and yet we all know who was so mad as to do it And for further proof of it both against Cavaliers and Malecontented Presbyterians together the same Mr. B. in Page 483. tells us That Grotius and other learned Politicians conclude That if a King shall thus make himself an enemy of the people engaging in War against them he deposeth himself and may be used by them as 〈◊〉 enemy 4. The Fourth Position is That the constitution of the Kingdom being by this means dissolved and the Nation put into a state of War being divided into two parties these two parties though really they make but one Nation yet during the War they are no longer to be reckoned as one Nation but as two Nations contending for distinct Rights So saith Mr. Baxters Royal friend Grotius in his Tract De Legatis 5. The Fifth Position is That if while the War lasteth the two parties are to be reputed two Nations then the Rights and Laws of War do belong unto either party against the other as absolutely as they can belong unto one Nation against another when they are at War Besides that this is confessed the Reason is evident because no War can be managed or regulated unless Jura belli the Laws of War be admitted for the direction and decision of matters relating to the Warlick occasion and Controversie The state of War hath its known Laws among the Nations as well as the Civil state of a Kingdom or Commonwealth hath known Laws in its particular Nation whereby matters of difference are to be ended This is a confessed point Why else are so many Books extant touching the Laws of War The main point of the Soveraignties being divided heretofore betwixt the King and the Parliament and acknowledged to be so by the King himself and the other Positions premised being proved by the Testimonies of such as are reverenced by both Royalists and Presbyterians I trust then that by building upon Foundations of their own I shall give both of them satisfaction in the Building and be able to convince them that there is both Law and Reason for the sitting of this Parliament As to the grand Argument which both our Author Mr. Pryn and others doe use that according to Law the Parliament was dissolved by the Kings death T is true that it was so provided by Law that the death of a King dissolved a Parliament but you are to observe that this was a Law relating to the Constitution of Parliament in the ordinary Course of its regulation and respecting only the formality of the Writ summoning the Parliament to advise with the particular person of the King in whose name the writ was issued forth and truly when the old Constitution remained without disturbance it was reason it should be retained in its ordinary Course but in an extraordinary case as that of this Parliament hath been in all the great revolutions from first to last when the very Constitution Parlamentary it self as to the nature of the Powers and Rights of the several parties King and people therein concerned fell under Question and when the sword was drawn betwixt the parties to decide it and the King persisted to claim the whole Right of Soveraignty contrary to that antient Constitution and referred his Claim to the determination of the sword and thereby according to the equity of our sundamental Laws sorfeited his Kingship and became a private person dissolved the Constitution of the Kingdom introduced another Law viz. the Law of Arms to trie his Cause by and pleaded it with sword in hand to the very last is it reason in such an extraordinary Case of this that the surviving party of that King should ground an Argument upon the formalities and ordinary usages of a Constitution whenas that Constitution it self hath by the King himself been dissolved long agoe what legall or rational Plea can now be made upon the account of his Regal capacity who by proceeding contrary to the very Law and nature of the Constitution upon which he stood justly lost all the Benefit of it and became a private person and having made himself an enemy to the people deposed himself as Mr. Baxter tels you out of Grotius and therefore might be used as an enemy with what face I say can any man after all this talk of Law in relation to him who had not only violated all Law in the Branches but pluckt up the very root of it in destroying the Parlamentary establishment of the Kingdom as much as in him lay and would refer himself to no Law but as I said before the Law of warr Let the impartial part of the world then yea and our Adversaries themselves from their own very doctrines here cited be Judges The consideration of these particulars may serve sufficiently to clear 1. The justice of secluding those Members who in endevouring to bring the King after all to the Throne again made themselves Criminals because they would by treacherie have betraied the whole Soveraignty contrary to the Fundamental Law of the Constitution into his hands which Seclusion is to be justified not only by the Law of Necessity as they pleaded that acted it but by the Law of the Land which might have called them to account for their lives and also by the Law of Nations which in such case as this alloweth the victorious part of the People to create a new Law for another Constitution of Government 2. This shews the sufficiencie of that Authority which brought the late King to Justice According to the Royal and Presbyterian doctrins he made himself a private person as well as a publick Enemy therefore having shed so much blood and done so many mischiefs deserving death he might legally being a private man be put to his Trial according to Law for lesser Crimes as well as for that transcendent Crime of dissolving the Fundamental Constitution of the Kingdom by warring for the whole Soveraignty in himself 3. This sheweth as is hinted before the Legality of the remaining Parliaments sitting to form a new Government for though they were but a part of the Parliament heretofore yet being the only ones that remained faithful to the Peoples Quarrel against their Enemy the King and the former Government having been as the forecited Authors confess dissolved by the King himself certainly the Law of God the Law of Nature and the Law of the Land intending there should be some Government and the Law of War which the King himself brought in having transmitted the Soveraign Power into their hands for the People they by all manner of Laws are avowed to be the Supreme Authority and Parliament of England and therefore legally qualified to sit to secure and settle a new Fundamental Law of