Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	judge_n	king_n	lord_n	8,619	5	4.0580	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A50269	Certain material and useful considerations about the laws positive and laws of necessity relating to the unhappy distractions of the present times	Mathew, John.; Philalethes.	1680 (1680)	Wing M1288A; ESTC R36494	10,378	18

Certain MATERIAL and USEFUL CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT The Laws Positive AND Laws of Necessity RELATING To the unhappy DISTRACTIONS of the present TIMES 2 COR. XIII Vers 8. We can do nothing against the Truth but for the Truth 1 THES V. Vers 21 22. Prove all things hold fast that which is good abstain from all appearance of Evil. JAM III. Vers 17 18. The Wisdom that is from above is first pure then peaceable gentle and easie to be entreated full of Mercy and good Fruits without partiality and without hypocrisie And the Fruit of Righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace Printed at LONDON in the Year 1680. TO HIS REVEREND FRIEND THEODIDACTUS HAving been much troubled even to restlesness in my Thoughts about the tender and dangerous Distractions of these Times I have often and earnestly besought Almighty God in my Prayers that he would assist me with his Spirit that I might honestly set my self to seek the Truth so seeking that I might find it and finding it may chearfully embrace it and constantly cleave unto it in what Case or Danger soever I should find it To this end I tasked my self to the saddest and severest Meditations my weak Body and Intellectuals could undergo which being I trust by the guidance of God resolved into these ensuing Hypotheses I commit to your judicious and most impartial Censure being not so fond of mine own fancies but that I can indure to see them stript stark naked and if they prove not the Issues of Truth to disinherit them from ever having farther possession of my Thought I see not many things and hear not all living so remote from any Town where the Tide of Books and Reports flows in some Pamphlets there are walking about with as much confidence and finding as good entertainment as Truth it self needeth and with a great deal of less Modesty than it useth to do Pleas Appeals Reasons c. which beg the Question I look they should prove left me more unsatisfied rather than they found me I have hitherto perhaps through fondness more contentment from these Conceptions of mine own which I intreat you to examin with all Faithfulness and Severity as knowing you cannot do your self or me greater injury than to flatter me in falshood who am come praised be God so far towards Wisdom as heartily to thank him who rebukes me in Love and lovingly to thank him who refutes me with Reason PHILALETHES 1. ALthough the King and Parliament assembled together are the most Honourable and Supreme Court of the Kingdom from whom there is no humane appeal yet they are still to be look'd upon as a Company of Men subject to Infirmities Passions and Errors as other men are and therefore may even were they concur determin things Evil in themselves Or else we must grant that no Parliament Acts were ever Evil in themselves and so needed no Abrogation but only inconvenient for Time and Occasions and so needed but suspensions 'till fit Seasons reinforceing them might return and if the whole may err in their Determinations much more may the parts severally and alone 2. In so great a Number it is probable there still will be as it is certain now there are some of green Years slender Parts and small Experience little or no Learning either in Arts or Law and I may add from the Censures of some part of that Court upon the other of at least suspected Integrity who as they are Chosen by popular Voices wherein sinister references oftentimes bear no small sway so are they probably led in Voting by popular Arguments tending most to Liberty being incompetent Judges of the Methods and Mysteries of State-Government Whence it will follow that where the number of Voices and not the depth of Argument carries it the fittest and justest Propositions may oft be overborn by Number which cannot be confuted by Reason 3. As it is true that no Evil ought to be imagined of the Parliament so it is as true that none ought to be imagined of the King and yet it is not untrue that where there is none the greatest Evil may be suspected and the greatest may be where none is imagined 4. Though no Evil ought to be imagined in the Parliament conjunctim and in the Lump viz. That what the King and both Houses shall fairly and freely conclude and Enact will prejudice no man yet in regard of the particular Members when I know Evil by them I may suspect Evil from them Else why doth one part of the Parliament not only suspect but say so much and so great Evil of the other whilst they mutually repute each other Enemies of the State which of all civil Evils is the greatest 5. Where there is a noise of Extream danger which all men fear and as earnest an undertaking for prevention which all men desire it is easie to conceive how ready men will assent without a due Examination either of the imminency of the danger or lawfulness of the prevention especially men of the weaker sort not able so well to judge of either 6. When it is possible that no one in either House of Parliament may be Learned in the Law since Noblemen Knights Gentlemen Citizens and Townsmen of which they consist are not necessary to be so nor one more than another I see not how the judgment of the Law can fully and properly reside in them especially when the King consents not And so much seems implyed by the setting of the Judges in the Lords House who for ought I hear have no other Office there but to advise or advertise in point of Law 7. When it is said the Judgment of the major part of both Houses is the judgment of the whole Parliament and consequently of the Kingdom I conceive it is not rightly affirmed for besides that the Judgment of the Clergy is not so much as in a shadow there represented who are a considerable part of the Kingdom and should be presumed to have as good judgment and be as good men as others I resign not my Judgment but promise Obedience to the Parliament not barely to the Burgesses of my own Town whom perhaps I think very unfit and who were chosen against my will but to the Result and Determination of both Houses and not to them only neither but as all are allowed confirmed and perfected by the King's assent For I am represented in the Commons but as subordinate to the King and to joyn with the King and with the Lords not with or against both or either of them to make Laws for the good of the Kingdom So that when the Act is made by the concurrence of all the three Requisit Consents then as I suppose and not till then it becomes Obligatory and as a peaceable Subject I must obey it if it be lawful before God though my judgment be still free at home and I do think it inexpedient as the Negative part of the Votes do for it is

impossible and against Reason and Nature that any understanding Man's judgment back'd with strength of Argument should be led Captive by two or three Votes 8. The major part of the Houses being the part which exceeds the other but by three or four Voices shall not that Law which is concluded only by the advantage of those Voices without the King's consent be a Lesbian Rule or Nose of Wax which upon a second Vote may pass the contrary way upon a casual absence or presence of so small a Number The Law is a streight Rule and always like it self if such and such a thing be Law after it was so Voted by the major part of the Houses it was Law before it was so Voted unless an absolute Power of Law-making be in such a Vote and then may be put in Execution without new Voting only the Law ought to be produced If the major part of the Votes of both Houses be only Declarative of the Law then in reason the first Voting should stand or else this would be a very uncertain Rule and so the case of ordering the Militia should not be according to Law because that was first and twice Countervoted by the House of Lords Such broad and obvious exceptions ought in matters of so high concernment to be fully cleared and removed 9. When the Question is who shall be Judge of the Law I suppose it must be meant either of the sence of particular Laws or of the Latitude and scope of the Laws in general If of the first I conceive the sence will appear 1. Either by the clear Light that it hath in it self as the Sun shews his own Light Or 2. By reference to other Laws or Clauses touching the same Argument which are more perspicuous Or 3. By the usage and practice which is the life of the Laws If none of these can make it plain in my judgment it becomes no Law but is Obsolete until a full sence be agreed upon again by the full Authority that first made the Law Otherwise I see not any Rule for declaring of the Law that can be always absolutely determinative for besides that the same thing is at divers times diversly Voted if Votes of either House should chance as possibly they may to be equally divided and the major part of both Houses severally be necessarily required to determin where shall the Determination be when the Votes of One at least be equally ballanced Unless we fly unto a third way viz. That the major part of both Houses in Gross where the exception lies as full because they may chance to be equal also If it be understood of the second then that Latitude ought to be evinced from some Terms in the Law expressed which terms are to be produced and not from the pleasure of any that shall say That is lawful which seems so to them especially when they make themselves the sole Judges both of Law and Equity For whether will not such a Liberty reach A Transition is so made à Genere ad Genus from Positive Law to the Law of Reason and that being various according to the diversity of Apprehensions cannot be imposed upon all where the full Legislative Power is not concurrent And I conceive it is not properly said That in extreme danger I may by Law do that which otherwise I may not do But in such a Case I may do that and be excused which by Law I cannot do As in an Assault I think the Law does not say You may kill a Man or take away his Weapon but if you do it the Law will not punish you because it is against all Reason that where the Law affords me no help it should not hold me excused for helping my self when Necessity which hath no Law is so pressing that otherwise I must perish 10. When Necessity and Extreme Danger are made the Grounds for otherwise doubtful and dangerous Undertakings it were meet those Terms were rightly defined that so we might clearly see the soundness of our Warrant I conceive that to be when a Man is so presently distrest that he can make no possible use of any positive Law to help him and so becomes in a sort disoblig'd from it and left free to the Law of Nature which permits every things to seek the Preservation of it self This Necessity dispenses with ordinary Duties both to God and Man but we must be sure of the Necessity before we assume the Liberty If a Man steal and plead Necessity he shall not be excused because the Law hath not left him remediless in his Wants I may not take another Man's Sword from him because I have reason to fear he will hurt me nor the Sword I have lent one though he have threatened to kill me so long as he draws it not upon me because I have a Remedy yet by Law and may bind him to the Peace c. Then much less may I wrest His that hath sworn to defend me When Necessity is but supposed that there is no simple and absolute Necessity is confest and therefore no Law is under pretence of Necessity yet to be violated The Kingdom may be in danger and the Danger not extreme nor any Necessity such but that it may be preserved by ordinary Defence or if the Danger be urgent we may not seek to prevent that without Law which by Law is well provided for already In great Dangers such as are now supposed the Kingdom is to be put into a Posture of Defence against Invasion domestick Rebellion or Tumult By Law and Custom the King is to order it And so much is acknowledged by the present Parliament in their Reply to the King's Answer the 29th of January if it be theirs when speaking of the Forts and Castles of the Kingdom they have these Words viz. We confess the Nomination of any Person to those Places so principal and inseparable a Flower of the Crown vested in You and derived to You from Your Ancestors by the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom You may reserve to Your Self And anon after speaking of the Militia they say Which Militia also We acknowledge by the Law is subject to no Command but of Your Majesty and of Authority derived from You. Now he carefully applying himself to it I see not what Necessity or disobliging Extremity can be alledged to dispossess him of it When he is not convinced to have failed in his Duty to doubt that he will is not to prove that he hath but rather that he hath not done it If the Enemies were landed and the Subject assaulted which are many degrees beyond the Dangers when this fell first into Debate the Ordering of the Defence would be still in the King unless where particular Outrages inforce particular Places for the Defence of themselves by the Law of Necessity which out-weighs other Laws But if the King be regardless of his Trust and their Safety and lets the Enemies graze along his Kingdom Or