Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	king_n	law_n	right_n	3,390	5	7.1155	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85888	A vindication of the Oath of allegiance in ansvver to a paper disperst by Mr Sam: Eaton, pretending to prove the Oath of allegiance voyd, and non-obliging. Wherein his positions against it are examined and confuted. / By the author of the Exercitation concerning usurped powers.	Gee, Edward, 1613-1660.; Hollingworth, Richard, 1607-1656, attributed name.	1650 (1650)	Wing G452; Thomason E593_6; ESTC R202111	38,293	50

or so much as implied in either of their oaths 4. Such mutually respective oaths have only place in matters arbitrary or that are in mens choice to do or not to do untill they bind themselves by Covenant but such are not the relative duties of Kings and Subjects there being a divine Law obliging each to the duties of their offices before they swear We see no sense imaginable of mutuall nor single will fit this mans turne but it will make his Proposition false either predicated of the Oath of Allegiance at all so doth the first and third acception afore-mentioned or if predicated with that modus of a necesse est so doth the third But let us heare his Reasons for this clause of his major whatever be the sense of it It is saith he against equity and reason and the good of the Subject that he should be further or longer bound to the Prince to submit to him then the Prince is bound to the Subject to rule well and administer Justice rightly Grant all this and it will no way follow therefore the Oath of Allegiance to make it righteous must be mutuall in any sense for the Prince may be bound and that as long to his part as the Subject is to his and so he is and it is impossible to be otherwise for Prince and Subject his tie to rule in justice and his to obey in just things are relatives and doe inferre necessarily each other to wit by the tie of Scripture conscience and positive Laws and yet not be sworne at all His major being thus I hope fully refuted I need not to take notice of his consequences as he calls them but in a word I shall touch on them The first is nothing but a hypotheticall repetition of some part of the major Proposition which I have been so long in disproving If the Oath of Allegiance were in judgement and righteousnesse the King was as strongly bound to the Subjects as any of them to him this therefore I passe by as the same that was said before and no consequence from it The second is Then if he break his Oath all the Subjests are absolved if they will This consequence I deny I have I thinke fully made it cleare before that the Oath of Allegiance taken by the Subject is absolute not depending upon any thing to be performed by the King whether sworne or not sworne and that it could not have been otherwise and though the King and people have each sworn their duties mutually See D. Sanders de Iuram oblig Prael 4. S 8. yet not with a mutuall respect by vertue whereof a breach on one side might be a discharge on the other and that neither the tenor of their Oaths hold forth any such thing neither is the matter of them capable thereof being necessary not arbitrary The third is Then at what time the King levied war against his Subjects they were discharged by that breach of Oath in him of their Allegiance This is a consequence of the former consequence and stands or falls with it that therefore being answered and disproved this vanisheth The fourth thing is no consequence but a reason of the two last consequences and in method of arguing is therefore an antecedent to prove them it is thus ellse the whole Parliament and their party were periured persons so many of them as have taken this Oath and are Rebells in taking up Armes against the King 1. If their taking up Arms against the King as he termes it were rebellion their absolution from their Oathes were it so indeed by the Kings breach of his could not unmake or make it no rebellion for the debt of obedience is existent in the Subject before any oath-taking and is not founded on swearing but only confirmed by it and therefore survives after the pretended dissolution of it and consequently makes that taking up arms which would have been if the Oath had not been as he supposeth nullified rebellion neverthelesse 2. We must therefore say as the Parliamentarian party hath believed declared and in many Treatises in print maintained all along the late warrs that the Armes of the Parliament were not against any branch of the Subjects Allegiance or the Oath for it which they professed still to owe persist in yea and in the Act of their Arms-bearing covenanted to yeeld maintain but concordant with the same In as much as they enterprized not against the Kings Person his State or Government they went not against his Majesty his Heirs or Successors they joyned not against his Crown and dignity the rights whereof and the bounds of the Subjects obedience are prefixed by the Laws of the Realm the ultimate interpretation whereof is in the Parliament which declared their arms to be for and agreeable to the Laws The King as King acts only by his Court and Laws what he doth besides or against these is the mans not the Kings acting what is done by Order of the Courts of Justice and by vertue of the Laws is done though against his personall presence or commands yet for the King his Crown and dignity 2. His next exception against the Oath of Allegiance is That it is an unlawfull oath in that it is sworn to the Kings Heirs his reason for this Exception proceeds thus Who knoweth as Eccl. 2.19 whether he will be a wise man or a fool a just or a wicked man and tyrant now if no man know this then to swear to an Heir is not an Oath in iudgement nor is it righteous for the Subject may bind himself to his own hurt yea ruine Consequence Then the Oath of Allegiance was in that branch that respected Heirs an unlawfull Oath c. I admit of the Antecedent but utterly deny the Consequence For the whole Consequence I answer 1. This inference is directly contrary to that which Solomon in the place cited Eccles 2.19 makes from the words Solomons is yet shall he have rule over all my labours wherein I have laboured and wherein I have shewed my self wise under the Sun this mans inference is in effect because no man knows whether he will be a wise man or a fool therefore he shall not have Rule c. that is we must not engage before hand that he shall rule while it is uncertain what he will prove though Solomon saith notwithstanding that is uncertain yet he shall have Rule and so Rehoboam none of the wisest Princes had Rule over Solomons labour yet they that cleaved to him did much better then they that revolted from him and I suppose this gentleman dare not say that an Oath of Allegiance to Solomon and his seed or to Rehoboam himself after the manifestation of his weaknesse was unlawfull 2. The same reason if it held would lie against any Oath or Engagement to any Rulers in being whatsoever they are yea against the new Engagement to the present Government for say that Rulers be come to maturity and for time

service so whether his Master prove good or evill or as it is in a man or womans power to bestow themselves in marriage whether the mate be observant of duty or no. 4. A Conditionall Oath is not consistent with a necessary duty obedience to magistrates is not lesse arbitrary but commanded and that though they be bad but now the duty being necessary if you would have it sworn with a proviso of the Rulers performing his duty you nullifie the end of an Oath which is to confirm put out of doubt and give security of what is due A thing sworn may become due either by the Rule of Equity or by a voluntary Covenant that which is due the later way if the Covenant be conditionall the Oath that is to ratifie it may be also so far conditionall but what is due in the former kind to wit by absolute and unalterable rule or precept of Justice cannot be sworn to conditionally for that would be no ratification to it nay it would be a debilitating and rendering more insecure of that which was simply due without an oath a condition being put into your Oath being a very probable medium to perswade the swearer that he is no otherwaies bound to the things sworn then upon that condition which being broken by the party sworn to he will easily conceive himself altogether free thus the absolute Rule will receive impeachment and not strength in it's obligation by the conditionall Oath such an Oath therefore is in it's end inconsistent with it 2. I come to the lrtter part of his Major which exacteth That the Oath be mutuall or taken both by Ruler and Ruled not single or taken only by the ruled Some explanation of his terms more then is here he might have used for lack whereof I shall as I go observe some difference of sense appliable to his words and so expresse how I deny this branch of his position and why 1. His words sound as if he would have the same Oath to be taken mutually both by Prince and Subjects which if he remember that the Oath spoken of is the oath of a Subjects Allegiance obedience or subjection to be yeelded to his Soveraign and that the King is the person sworn to he will not cannot I suppose own to be his sense 2. But the apter sense and that which I suppose was in his intention is that the Ruler and Subject should each swear to his respective duty the Prince that he will command and govern lawfully the Subject that he will perform all lawfull homage and obedience and to this I say although it be true it in fact in our case that the King hath sworn his duty on his part as well as the Subject doth in this oath swear his yet the Proposition is false in this and it cannot be said that thus it universally ought of necessity to be betwixt every Prince and his Subjects much lesse can it hold that unlesse it be thus mutuall the Subjects oath is not in righteousnesse according to Ier. 4.2 but that for want of this mutuality it it is null for 1. We read of many undoubtedly righteous Oaths in Scripture undertaken in Covenants betwixt man and man wherein one party only sweareth and not both mutually * Gen. 24.2.47 31. Exod. 13.19 Iosh 2.12.9.15.14.9 Iudg. 15.12 1 Sam. 19.6 1 Kings 1.13.29.51 2 Sam. 19.23 Noh 5.12 Ier. 38 10. 2. We find in Scripture Oaths of Allegiance taken by Subjects to their Rulers without the reciprocall swearing of the Rulers to them * 2 Reg. 11.4 Iudg. 11 10. Chron. 36.13 Ezek. 17.3 such was that ingagement Josh 1.16 17 18. 3. Oaths are never to be taken but necessarily that is when not only the matter is of great weight but it cannot otherwise be sufficiently confirmed or assured then by Oath * D. Sanders de Iuram ob pral 7. S. 12. Tholos syntag dur 1.50 c. 3. but in solemne humane Covenants it comes to passe that somtimes the performance lies only on one party the other is to receive advantage but not to do any thing somtimes the danger of breach lies only or more on one part then on another somtimes there is other satisfactory assurance given besides swearing and sometimes there is other remedy if there should be a breach then the forfeiture of an Oath in such and other cases an Oath on the one party may not need and consequently is not be exacted 4 But suppose the case that it be as necessary for security that the King sweare to the people as that they take an Oath to him yet if through over much credulity or otherwise it be that the people do swear and not the Prince this cannot be the least colour for the nullifying of the Peoples Oath for whether the King swear or no that which makes the Oath obliging is that in a just and possible matter promised God is invocated as a witnesse of the promise 3. There is another sense of mutual swearing more strict then the former and that is when not only two parties sweare to each other their respective parts but they both sweare with a mutuall respect that is the obligation of the one party hath a respect to a dependence on the performance of the other party as when one man swears to another to give him so much money for his land that other swears to conveigh to him his land for so much money in this kind a breach of the one is a releasement to the other And here that Adage holds good Frangenti fidem fides frangatur eidem As also that Rule of the Law Frustra quis fidem postulat sibi serv●…i ab eo cui fidem à se praestitam servare recusat But this sense 〈…〉 ll swearing cannot come in to be meant in our case For 〈…〉 an oath is plainly conditionall the one party sweares not 〈…〉 the other absolutely and clearly so much money but to give him so much for his land the having of the land then is an expresse condition of his Oath but the Oath of the Subjects Allegiance is granted to be absolute and is as such disputed against by him here and I have above proved an Oath of Allegiance cannot be conditionall 2. The Kings Oath is also absolute and binds without dependence on the Subjects Loyalty no man will say I thinke that the King is discharged from ruling justly and may become an absolute Tyrant if his Subjects exceed the bounds or faile of the bonds of their oath or duty nay if the Subject transgresse his duty the King is bound by his oath to cause justice according to the law and tenour of his oath to be done and cannot otherwise escape violation of his oath 3. Such mutuall oaths are entred into by both parties at the same time and have their mutuall respects expressed but neither doth the King and Subjects sweare to each other at the same time neither is there any such mutuall respect mentioned

neither the peoples not the Supreme by way of peculiarity and that the Kings power derives as strongly and as nerely from the people as as doth the Parliaments though both have their principall originall from God and are but instrumentally from the people 2. The Consequent is then the Representatives of the people are the Parliament and none else were the Antecedent granted and most true yet he that knows what an argument is or hath but naturall Logick may see that this hath no kind of inference or consequentiall force from it We say that the Lords and Commons of England assembled with the politicall power and presence of the King are the Parliament and for this we appeal to all the use of the word since there was such a thing as a Parliament in England till within these very few dayes and the generall understanding of the word still to the Law common and municipal to the Titles of Parliamentary Acts and Statutes and to the Declarations and constant language of Parliaments themselves from first to last He saith the Representatives of the people meaning the said Commons are the Parliament for this he brings no proofe in the world from the application or use of the word by any though he cannot but know that words signifie according to the pleasure of some Imposer all his medium is in those term The Peoples power and the supreme power Whereas it is a question betwixt us whether there be such a thing as power or supremacy belonging to the people and if that were granted yet it is still a question betwixt us whether the peoples and the supreme power be any more appertaining to the Commons then to the King and Lords I cannot assent to either the affirmative of both are his positions and but barely affirmed by him so that in making this inference he doth but prove one of his principles by another improved and in so doing doth but petere principium 3. His reason of this consequence is for the Representatives are the people in them and there is the race of power This is still but to infer the conclusion upon an unproved principle of his own which I have denyed and refuted above but I shall here touch upon the wide mistakes about this term and thing Representatives with which hee and others are I see overtaken 1. he taketh for granted that the Commons in Parliament are the peoples Representatives which me thinks cannot properly be said if we understand by the people all estates members or parties in the Kingdome and if he doth not so understand it I aske how can he after his own sense place the power supremacy representablenes only in one part of the Kingdom for the said Commons are chosen but by and in the name of the Commoners in distinction from the Peers and cannot are not intended to represent any more then those by and in whose name they are elected and therefore are called the Commons in Parliament besides the Peers are present and therefore cannot be represented If then all the people are not Commoners nor represented how are those Commons truly and compleatly the Representatives of the people 2. He seems to found the Commons power and that in a degree above others that are undoubted powers upon their being Representatives of the people Whereas I think it will upon scanning appear that their representativenesse is not the rise or ground of any Magistraticall power in them 1. That which makes them or any men a power as I apprehend the matter is that they are Gods Representatives and that which ordinarily makes them so is that they are chosen or consented to by the people either personally or in the originall constitution of government unto the administration of an authority ordained by God and thus are in this kingdom the Prince the Peers and the Commons in Parliament though not all the same way but some personally others hereditarily The said Commons have indeed this addition but it is not of Magistraticall power but of popular action and employment that they are the Commons representatives because the colective Commons cannot convene or treat which representation empowers them not to any publique Magistracy or Acts of distributive Iustice but only intrusts and inables them to deeds of Commutative right or contract on the Commoners behalf as the agreeing on Taxes Forces or other requisites to be borne in an equall proportion and which are due as far as proportionable from the people to the publique Magistrates and service 2. If the power of the Commons be grounded on their representativenes of the people then it is necessary all the Members should be present to make them a representative of the whole Body of the people and to inable them to act so as to bind the whole because the Members compose a Representative not so as that every one tepresents the whole but each one represents a part and all of them collectively represents the whole 3 He placeth the dimension and prerogative of the Office of the said Commons in their Representativenes of the people where it seemeth to me they are not meere but more then Representatives of the people They that are meerly Representatives are 1. To act what they whom they represent might act if they were present 2 To act nothing but what they have in charge from the represented But this is not the latitude of the Commons in Parliament they are not thus tyed up For first If they be an estate endued with civill authority they may act authoritatively and so could not the people whome they represent if they were present no such power being seated in them as was a little before alleged 2 If they be a power they are impowred by God and so have in charge from him to act the thing within their Commission whether they are charged from the people to doe them or not yea though the people should command the contrary If they be no more then representees and so be bounden by the latter rule here given perhaps some would aske what charge or Commission did the people ever give either to any Former or to the present Representatives for some actings Thirdly His third Question and Answer is Whether the present Representatives that now sit be the Representative of the people R. First they are all of them chosen by the people therefore of right they sit in Parliament First Whether they be all so chosen I shall not enquire but I have read in Master Prin as I remember it is in his Speech upon the Treaty who it is probable knew the house better then this Gentleman the contrary of some whom he there names 2 But if they all be legally chosen that proves not that they of right sit in Parliament unles there be a right Parliament to sit in R. Secondly the present Representatives are all that are left to sit in Parliamet for the most of the rest have deserted their trust without any force upon them