Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	court_n	justice_n	law_n	3,065	5	4.7299	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A33923	Vindiciæ juris regii, or Remarques upon a paper, entitled, An enquiry into the measures of submission to the supream authority	Collier, Jeremy, 1650-1726.	1689 (1689)	Wing C5267; ESTC R21083	43,531	52

our Government which as the Enquirer acknowledges lodges the Militia i. e. the Power of the Sword singly in the King. So that without his Order none of his Subjects can Form themselves into Troops or carry the face of an Army without being lyable to the highest Penalties And whereas he urges That if we have a Right to our Property we must likewise be supposed to have a Right to preserve it He means by Force To this I Answer First That a Man may have an unquestionable Right to some Things which he has no Warrant to recover Vi Armis but must rest the Enjoyment of them with the Conscience and Prudence of another E. G. If the Father of a wealthy Person falls into deep Poverty he has an undoubted Right to a Maintenance out of his Sons Estate and yet he cannot fairly recover it by Force without a Legal Provision for this purpose To bring the Instance nearer home The Right of making War and Peace is an Indisputable Branch of the King's Prerogative yet unless his Subjects assist him this Authority can seldom be exerted to any Successful effect because his Majesty cannot Levy Money which is the Sinews of War without the consent of Parliament Farther every one who is injured in his Property and endeavours the regaining of it by course of Law has without doubt a Right to have Justice done him But if the Court where the Cause is depending happens to be mistaken or corrupted I desire to know whether it 's Lawful for him to raise his Arrier Ban upon such a Disappointment Our Author is obliged by his Principle to say no and therefore he must either Answer 1. That the Party aggreived ought to appeal to a higher Court to which it may be replyed That it 's possible for him to meet with the same misfortune thēre for our Constitution does not pretend to any Insallible or Impecable Judges 2. His Second Answer must be that this is a Private Case and therefore a Man is bound to submit to ill usage rather than disturb the publick Peace But to this I return that we may suppose a general failure of Justice through Subornation Bribery c. and then the Oppression will be of a publick and Extensive Nature and yet if a grievance of this Magnitude should continue unredress'd after complains our Author will not allow us the benefit of any rougher Methods for he frankly tells us That it 's not lawful to Resist the King upon any Pretence of ill Administration in the Execution of the Law. Pag. 14. so that by his own Argument we may have some very considerable Rights which it 's not justifiable to demand of the Government with a drawn Sword. Secondly This Liberty of Resistance dissolves all Government For as I have already Observ'd when every man is the Judge of his own Priviledges i. e. when he is made the Authentick Interpreter of the Laws and may use all the force he can get at his discretion against the State he is then most certainly to be govern'd by no body but himself And therefore Thirdly This Liberty must be the worst security for Peace and Property imaginable as I shall shew more at large by and by As for his limiting Resistance To plain and visible Invasions This is a very feeble Remedy against Confusion For since every one is made Judge of the Evidence and the generality are naturally over credulous and apt to believe ill of their Governours when designing Men have once impos'd upon their understandings and almost har'd them out of their sences then every thing will be plain to them but their Duty Thus it was plain that Charles the First intended to introduce Popery though possibly never any Person since the Reformation gave ●etter proof of his Adherence to the Church of England than that ●rince Thus likewise at the beginning of this present Revolution it was plain to the greatest part of the Nation that his Majesty had made a League with the French King to Extirpate the Protestants and their Religion Though now the World sees there never was a more Malicious and unreasonable Calumny invented But though Reports of this Nature are never so monstrous and nonsensical yet at this rate we shall never want a Demonstration for a Rebellion as long as such loose Principles as the Enquirer advances are allowed His Thirteenth Section contains nothing but Objections which to do him Justice are fairly put considering the small compass they are drawn into How well he gets clear of the Difficulties he was sensible of the Reader must judge for now we are coming to his Fourteenth and Dead doing Paragraph in which he offers to take off all the Arguments which are made for Non-resistance Now before I reply distinctly to his Answers I shall endeavour to offer something more than I have urged already in Consutation of his main Principle And here it 's not amiss to observe That the Enquirer in his Ninth Section Makes the Measures of our Submission much shorter than those of the Ancient Christians because Our Religion is Established by Law. By vertue of which Distinction he makes our Faith fall under the consideration of Property and from thence concludes by Implication That we may resist our Prince in defence of it But we are to consider though our Religion has a legal Settlement yet we have no Authority to maintain it by Force Nay our Laws are express as it 's possible against all manner of Resistance as himself acknowledges Now the Law is certainly the Measure of all Civil Right and therefore to carve out our selves a greater Security than the Law allows is Destructive of all Government If the Mobile get this hint it 's to be feared they will give him no occasion in their Second Expedition to admire them for Burning and Plundering with so much Temper and Moderation Further he grants by Consequence That the Roman Emperours were irresistable For I don't find that he allows the Primitive Christians a Liberty of Resistance though they were invaded in their Lives and Properties as well us in their Religion Now if these Emperours were irresistable I desire to know what made them so if he Answers the Laws I Reply That the English Constitution is as full against taking Arms to oppose the King as is possible If he Replies That it was unlawful to resist the Roman Emperours because the making of Laws was wholy in their own Power but where the Legative Authority is partly in the King and partly in the People the Case is otherwise To this I Answer That the Division of the Legislative Power does not weaken the Obligation of a Law when all the Distinct Authorities concur to the making of it E. G. I Question not but our Author will grant that the English Laws though the People have a share in Enacting them are as perfect and ought to be as inviolable as those in Turkey where all depends upon the Princes Will Therefore if the

First Now the Lords and Commons in their Petition to the King complain That his Majesties Subjects had been charged with Aids Loans and Benevolences contrary to Law and Imprisoned Confined and sundry ways molested for non Payment That the Subjects had been detained in Prison without certifying the Cause contrary to Law. That they had been compelled to quarter Soldiers and Marriners contrary to Law. That notwithstanding several Statutes to the contrary divers Commissions had been Issued out under the great Seal of England to try Soldiers and Marriners by Martial Law Quarto Car. 1. Rushworth's Coll. To this I might add the Levying Ship Money Coat and Conduct Money c. but I am not willing to enlarge upon so unacceptable a Subject non to discover the Misfortunes of the Father any further than Justice and Duty to the Son obliges me I say the Misfortunes which we see the best Princes through misinformation or improper advice may sometimes fall into However I must crave leave to take notice that these were other manner of Grievances than the Dispencing with Penal Laws both in respect of the Evidence and Consequences of them and yet I am sure the War which was made by the Subjects upon this Score is by our Laws declared an Horrid and Notorious Rebellion This I mention not to justifie the Conduct of the Ministers but to shew that under these Circumstances a mistake in his Majesty ought rather to be lamented than exposed and Magnified at such an enflaming Hyperbolical rate And to this modesty of Behaviour we are now more especially obliged since his Majesty has promised to Redress past Errors which is a plain Argument that some of his former Measures are unacceptable to himself as well as to his Subjects and that he will not pursue them for the future Fourthly Our Author proceeds to argue That the Law mentioning the King or those Commissionated by him shews plainly that it designed only to secure him in the Executive Power for the Word Commission necessarily imports this Since if it is not according to Law it 's no Commission From whence I suppose he infers that those who have it may be resisted Now that this Inference is wide of the Mark appears First Because when this Law was made the King was not restrained from Commissionating any Person whatever in the Field and therefore the Legislators could have no such Design in their View as the Enquirer supposes Secondly The Test Act which was made several Years after the former though it bars the King from granting Military Commands to those who refused to give the prescribed Satisfaction that they were no Papists yet this Statute only declares their Commissions void and subjects them to some other Penalty but it does by no means Authorise the People to rise up in Arms and suppress them and therefore by undeniable Consequence it leaves the other Law of Non-resistance in full force Thirdly This Law which declares it Unlawful to take up Arms against those who are Commissionated by the King was designed as may reasonably be collected from the Time to combat that pernicious distinction between the King's Person and his Authority which has been always too prevalent though in reality it 's nothing but the King's Authority which makes his Person Sacred and therefore the same inviolable Priviledge ought to extend to all those who Act under him Yet notwithstanding this it has often happened that those who pretend a great Reverence for his Person make no scruple to seize his Forts sight his Armies and destroy those who adhere to him under the pretence of taking him out of the Hands of Evil Counselors which has been the most usual and plausible Colour of subverting the Government This Act therefore which was made soon after the Restauration we may fairly conclude was particularly levelled against this dangerous Maxim which had so Fatal an Influence upon the late Distractions Fourthly and Lastly The Enquirer urges That the King imports a Prince clothed by Law with the Regal Prerogative but if he goes about to subvert the whole Foundation of the Government he subverts that by which he has his Power and by Consequence he Annuls his own Power c. First To this it may be Reply'd That bare endeavouring to do an Action though the signs of Executing may be pretty broad is not doing it in the Construction of humane Laws E. G. Drawing a Sword upon a Man is not Murther The intention of the Mind is often impossible to be known for when we imagine a Man is going to do one thing he may be going to do another for ought we can tell to the contrary or at least he may intend to stop far short of the Injury we are afraid of And supposing we had an Authority to punish him there is no reason that conjecture and meer presumption should make him forfeit a Right which is grounded upon clear and unquestionable Law. But Secondly If with reference to the present Case our Author means that the Government is actually subverted as he seems plainly to affirm pag. 7. Then I grant the King's Authority is destroy'd and so is the Property of the Subject too For if the Government is dissolv'd no Man has any Right to Title or Estate because the Laws upon which their Right is founded are no longer in Being But if the Government be so lucky as not to be dissolv'd then the King's Authority remains entire by his own Argument because it 's supported by the same Constitution which secures the Property of the Subject In his Sixteenth Paragraph we have a mighty Stress lay'd upon the difference between Male Administration and striking at Fundamentals as if it was Lawful to resist the Prince in the latter Case though not in the former But if this Distinction had been own'd by our Constitution we may be assured we should have had a plain List of Fundamentals set down in the Body of our Laws particularly we have all imaginable reason to believe that these Fundamentals would have been mentioned and saved by express Clauses and Provisoes in those Statutes which forbid Resistance For without such a direction it would be impossible for the Subject to know how far his Submission was to extend and when it was Lawful to make use of Force Such an unregulated Liberty would put it into the Power of all popular and aspiring Male Contents to corrupt the Loyalty of the unwary Multitude as often as they thought fit to cry out Breach of Fundamentals And at this rate it is easy to foresee what a tottering and unsettled condition the State must be in And therefore according to the old Maxim for which there was never more occasion Ubi Lex non Distinguit non est Distinguendum I have now gon through his Principles and I think sufficiently shewn the Weakness and Danger of them And if so his Catalogue of Grievances signify nothing to his purpose though there was much more aggravation and Truth in them than there is But time has now Expounded the great Mystery and made it evident to most Mens Understandings that our Authors Party has fail'd Remarkably in Matters of Fact as well as in Point of Right For they have not so much as attempted to make good the main and most invidious Part of the charge against his Majesty though to omit Justice Honour and Interest has so loudly called upon them to do it Their giving no Proof after such Importunity of their own Affairs is a Demonstration they never had any For how defective soever they may be in other Respects we must be so just as to allow them Common Sence THE END * Letter to the Convent