Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A40719
|
A review of the grand case of the present ministry whether they may lawfully declare and subscribe as by the late act of uniformity is required? : in reply to a book entitled A short surveigh of the grand case, &c. : wherein all their objections against both the declarations are considered and answered / by the same hand.
|
Fullwood, Francis, d. 1693.
|
1663
(1663)
|
Wing F2514; ESTC R20121
|
61,527
|
240
|
the very constitution of the Kingdom to maintain and defend the Government iv question as he is King 10. It hence irresistably follows that the King cannot take a previous Oath contrary to his Coronation Oath but he thereby violates the very constitution of this Kingdome and there is an Obligation upon him to defend and to swear to defend before any Covenant that may be taken by him to extirpate Episcopacy 11. Yea the King cannot be bound to endeavour to extirpate Episcopacy by any such previous Oath seeing such endeavours cannot consist with the Tenor of his Coronation Oath to protect and defend the Bishops and if he should be tempted to take such an Oath against the Bishops it is void ipso facto for as he was born Heir to the Crown he was born Heir to the Oath of the Crown and bound as King to take it 12. I need not say the Coronation oath is unalterable in this particular it is enough that it is not yet altered and that it cannot be Legally altered but by Act of Parliament I am sure you will not say the King much less before he is Crowned hath power of himself or with any others besides his Parlament to make or diminish or alter any known Law especially that which so much concerns his peoples interest security in the oath to be taken at his Coronation 13. Pray therefore observe weigh this Consequence if an oath taken by the King to the contrary before hand doth void the Coronation Oath required by Law then the King by a private Oaâ—â— may equally bind himself to endeavour to destroy the priviledges of Parliament the liberty of the Subject and the other great concerns of Magna Charta as well as to extirpate Episcopacy and his Coronation Oath taken afterwards would not at all oblige him to govern by the Laws of the Land I argue not now from the necessity of the things but from the Obligation of the Laws and Oaths taken by the King about them 14. The Coronation Oath is part of the Inheritance of the Crown and all the Subjects in their several capacities are equally concerned in every part of it as Subjects for if we allow its violation in any one part we let go our security in all the rest 15. Moreover 't is certain that though where the Conscience judgeth the matter of a former Oath lawful the Conscience is bound against any future Oath to the contrary yet if the Conscience be convinced or fully perswaded that the former oath was sinful in the matter of it and doth take upon it a new Oath to the contrary in such a case the latter oath hinds the conscience 16. Now it is open and plain to all the world that seeing the King hath taken his Coronation Oath for to defend the Bishops passed those Bills for the protection and preservation of Episcopal Government and by his other protestations and practices of the like nature his Conscience will not suffer him to destroy Episcopacy but dictates to him that endeavours so to do are very sinful 17. Surely the King cannot be bound to endeavour against his Conscience more then to you against yours much less against his Conscience bound by an Oath his solemn Coronation Oath the bond of his Fidelity and peoples security this hath taken hold upon him and invincibly tieth him under such conviction to preserve his Conscience and his oath and Episcopal Government 18. In all charity and duty we are bound to judge according to all this appearance and I cannot imagine that any man doth scruple whether the King be in His Judgment for Episcopal Government against all the evidence He hath given us of it 19. So that the Objection of the single Person is removed beyond all suspition and seeing we are not to declare whaâ— things are in themselves but what we judg them to be who can possibly stick to declare That he holds the single Person is not bound by to endeavour the extirpation of Episcopal Government 20. Now for any other Person whether the Lords or Commons in Parliament or inferiour Subjects how can they or any of them be bound think ye to endeavour to make the King sin and in so high a manner as to violate His Conscience and His solemn sacred Coronation Oath without which he cannot consent as His Royal Father proved with His Life to the extirpation of Episcopal Government 21. Consent I say much less Enact it and yet without both it cannot be legally done neither can any endeavour it in any lawful way but by desiring and labouring to perswade the King thus to Consent and Enact against Oath and Conscience 22. But lest it should be doubted whether the King doth swear to defend the Bishops give me leave to subjoyn an Account of that Solemn proceeding at the Coronation so far as it relates to our Argument and I have done with this great part of my Task 23. I find the Account thus wherein I think I am not Mis-informed 24. After the many other gracious promises which the King makes to his People One of the Bishops reading to the King before the People concerning the Canonical priviledges of the Church and beseeching him that he would be the Protector of the Bishops and the Churches under their Government The King Answereth in these words with a willing and devout heart I promise and grant my pardon and that I will preserve and maintain to you and the Churches committed to your charge All Canonical priviledges and due Law and Justice and that I will be your Protector and Defender to my Power by the Assistance of God as every good King in his Kingdom in right ought to Protect and Defend the Bishops and Churches under their Government 25. Then the King ariseth and at the Communion Table makes a Solemn Oath in the presence of the People to Observe the premises and laying his hand upon the Book saith the things which I have before promised I shall perform and keep So help me God and the contents of this Book 26. Now who can think himself or any other person bound by any Obligation whatsoever to Necessitate so far as in them lies His Sacred Majesty to Violate His Oath so Solemnly Sworn at His Inâ—uguration CASE XVI Whether the Covenant be not against the Liberty of the Subject 1. I Must still assert the Liberty of the Subject was apparently violated by the Ordinance for the Covenant seeing the Free-holds of so many Several persons and famous Corporations were thus invaded while the Persons and Corporations so deeply concerned had none to Represent them in either house of Parliament when that Ordinance passed 2. This was the Emphasis of my Argument which you little observe and much less answer 3. I am still of the mind in my coldest blood that without Respect to some proportionable demerit it is not sui Juris to the King or Parliament to destroy any person or publique Corporation or to
deprive them of their legal Freeholds especially whilst their Representatives are kept out of Parliament it being against common Justice and the Liberty of the Subject in Magna Charta 4. To conclude admit Mr. Crofton do truly Recite the words in the Petition of Right whereas many of them have an Oath administred to them not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm yet my Assertion stands firm enough that the Covenant is against the Petition of Right 5. For it is not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm whether you consider the manner of imposing and taking or the very matter of it as hath fully appeared before 6. 'T is true Oaths are given by Colledges and Corporations but are they not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of the Realm if not I am not afraid to infer that such as impose them run thereby into a premunire if they are then my argument passeth untouch'd 7. Indeed these particular Oaths are not in so many words found in the Statutes yet who doubts but that the King hath power by the Laws of the Land to grant such Charters and to give Authority to Colledges and Corporations to Administer such Oaths 8. Again who can or dare lay claim to such a power but the King or Administer such Oaths without power from the King much less against his Express will and Proclamation CASE XVII Whether the Covenant be not against former Obligations 1. I Conclude it is so and therefore void the force of the Consequence cannot be resisted in those excellent words of our great Casuist Obligation Antecedens impedit effectum Juramenti Subsequentis ne possit Obligare Semper enim Obligatio prior praejudicat posteriori Irritum facit omnem Actum inductivum novae Obligationis sibi Contrariae 2. I assume there were three strong Cords and bonds of God upon us to the Contrary before ever the Covenant was taken or thought of to Obey Authority to keep our Oaths and promises to Serve the Church in Our Generations which we shal now review in their order SECT 1. Whether the Covenant be not against the Law of Obedience to Authority 1. YOu would perswade us that I affirm this onely upon my former Principles because the Covenant is against the Rights of the King the Laws of the Land the Priviledge of Parliament and the Liberty of the Subjects which you conceive are all laid in the dust 2. Perhaps you may find these Principles more potent and vigorous in their Resurrection however though I had a General Reflection upon these former Arguments yet I added a particular force to the present Argument which having raised a Dust it seems you did not see in these words 3. More particularly God first Obligeth us to be Subject and to obey our Governours and the Covenant would engage us to disobey disown and destroy them I mean our Governours in the Church the Covenant would discharge us of our obedience and oblige us to Resistance Contrary to Gods express obligation upon us which cannot be 4. God doth immediately by his Word and likewise by the Mediation and interposition of Civil Authority command us to obey to be subject and not to resist our Spiritual Governours the Covenant would engage to break all at once and at once to violate the Laws of God the King and the Church and all Authority 5. Our duty is positive to be subject 2. Negative not to Resist whosoever resisteth the power resisteth the Ordinance of God Wherefore we must needs be subject for conscience sake Rom. 13. Now both these are broken by the Covenant the one by omission the other by commission 6. First Our positive duty of obedience and subjection carrieth in it by Universal Consent to defend preserve to honour observe and to be faithful to our Governours now how these are consistent with Endeavours to Extirpate I cannot see 7. Again Our Negative part or Non-resistance is transgressed too by the Apostles Logick not to be subject is to Resist whosoever Resisteth wherefore we must needs be Subject however to Endeavour to Extirpate is too plainly to Resist 8. For Endeavours to Extirpate a Government are both far beyond the compass of Subjection they being no part either of Active or Passive Obedience and deep in the Nature of Resistance most properly taken 9. Endeavours to Extirpate have Action in them and are therefore more then passive Obedience their Action also is Diametrically opposite to Active Obedience 10. Again Endeavours to Extirpate do formally carry Resistance in them yea they are the formal Act of high Resistance not of the Law onely but of the Government it self not in the Action onely but in the very being of it for Extirpation is the end and utmost of Resistance and therefore Endeavour to Extirpate is properly resistance 11. Pray resolve me to what part of our Duty to our Parents will you reduce Endeavours to Extirpate their Government over us or how can such Endeavours square and Conform to the Commands of God and-the Laws of the Land Not to Resist but to be Subject to our Governours Ecclesiastical and Civil 12. 'T is vain to say we are bound to obey he laws yet we may Endeavour to have them changed It is not safe to Argue from the Laws which are but the Rule to our Governours who are the object of our obedience 13. If this consequence be Good upon an Oath taken of the like Nature against the civil power we may hold our selves bound to Endeavour to Extirpate both King and Parliament 14. For Government by Monarchy and the Constitution of Parliaments you will not say they are in themselves Necessary to our civil State and if because Episcopacy is doubted to be Jure Divino you conclude it lawful to swear against it or having so sworn to Endeavour to Extirpate it I dare not undertake to find a way for the civil Government to escape the danger the Inference is easie from Government to Government though the one be in the Church and the other in the State especially seeing we cannot resist the one and not disobey the other SECT 2. Whether the Covenant be not against Former Oaths and Promises 1. THis I also affirm and consequently that the Covenant was prevented by such Prior Obligations the Case is fully stated in these words of our Reverend Casuist Si cui Juramentum suscipiendum defereratur continens aliquid quod Obligationi priori sive Naturali sive adquisitae adversatur ut si adversetur officio quod parenti debetur aut principi vel si repugnet ei quod Ante liciè juratum fuit vel promissum ejusmodi Juramentum non potest à quoquam salvâ conscientiâ vel praestari vel praestitum ad impleri qui utrumvis fecerit pejeraverit 2. I assume that the Oaths of Allegiance Supremacy and the Protestation of May 5. 1641. were taken by the Nation before any of the Nation took the Covenant and that the Covenant