Selected quad for the lemma: conscience_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
conscience_n	bind_v	law_n	moral_a	1,887	5	10.0514	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41307	Observations concerning the original and various forms of government as described, viz. 1st. Upon Aristotles politiques. 2d. Mr. Hobbs's Laviathan. 3d. Mr. Milton against Salmatius. 4th. Hugo Grotius De jure bello. 5th. Mr. Hunton's Treatise of monarchy, or the nature of a limited or mixed monarchy / by the learned Sir R. Filmer, Barronet ; to which is added the power of kings ; with directions for obedience to government in dangerous and doubtful times.	Filmer, Robert, Sir, d. 1653.	1696 (1696)	Wing F920; ESTC R32803	252,891	546

Treason and he calls the Statute of 11 Hen. 7. an unjust and strange Act. But it may be Mr. Pryn will confess that Laws chosen by the Lords and Commons may be unjust so that the Lords and Commons themselves may be the Judges of what is just or unjust But where the King by Oath binds his Conscience to protect just Laws it concerns him to be satisfied in his own Conscience that they be just and not by an implicit Faith or blind Obedience no man can be so proper a Judge of the Justness of Laws as he whose Soul must lye at the Stake for the Defence and Safeguard of them Besides in this very Oath the King doth swear to do equal and right Justice and Discretion in Mercy and Truth in all His Judgments facies fieri in omnibus judiciis tuis aequam rectam justitiam discretionem in Misericordia Veritate if we allow the King Discretion and Mercy in his Judgments of Necessity he must judge of the Justness of the Laws Again the clause of the Oath quas vulgus elegerit doth not mention the Assenting unto or granting any new Laws but of holding protecting and strengthening with all his Might the just Laws that were already in Being there were no need of Might or Strength if assenting to new Laws were there meant Some may wonder why there should be such Labouring to deny the King a negative Voice since a negative Voice is in it self so poor a thing that if a man had all the Negative Voices in the Kingdom it would not make him a King nor give him Power to make one Law a Negative Voice is but a privative Power that is no Power at all to do or act any thing but a Power only to hinder the Power of another Negatives are of such a malignant or destructive Nature that if they have nothing else to destroy they will when they meet destroy one another which is the reason why two Negatives make an Affirmative by destroying the Negation which did hinder the Affirmation A King with a Negative Voice only is but like a Syllogism of pure negative Propositions which can conclude nothing It must be an Affirmative Voice that makes both a King and a Law and without it there can be no imaginable Government The Reason is plain why the Kings Negative Voice is so eagerly opposed for though it give the King no Power to do any thing yet it gives him a Power to hinder others though it cannot make him a King yet it can help him to keep others from being Kings For Conclusion of this Discourse of the negative Voice of the King I shall oppose the Judgment of a Chief Justice of England to the Opinion of him that calls himself an utter Barrister of Lincolns Inn and let others judge who is the better Lawyer of the two the words are Bracton's but concern Mr. Pryn to lay them to heart Concerning the Charters and Deeds of Kings the Justices nor private men neither ought nor can dispute nor yet if there rise a Doubt in the Kings Charter can they interpret it and in doubtful and obscure Points or if a word contain two Senses the Interpretation and Will of our Lord the King is to be expected seeing it is His part to interpret who makes the Charter full well Mr. Pryn knows that when Bracton writ the Laws that were then made and strived for were called the Kings Charters as Magna Charta Charta de Foresta and others so that in Bracton's Judgment the King hath not only a Negative Voice to hinder but an Affirmative to make a Law which is a great deal more than Master Pryn will allow him Not only the Law-maker but also the sole Judge of the People is the King in the Judgment of Bracton these are his words Rex non alius debet judicare si solus ad id sufficere possit the King and no other ought to judge if He alone were able Much like the words of Bracton speaketh Briton where after that he had shewed that the King is the Vice-roy of God and that he hath distributed his Charge into sundry portions because He alone is not sufficient to hear all Complaints of his People then he addeth these words in the Person of the King Nous volons que nostre jurisdiction soit sur touts Jurisdictions c. We Will that Our Jurisdiction be above all the Jurisdictions of Our Realm so as in all manner of Felonies Trespasses Contracts and in all other Actions Personal or Real We have Power to yield or cause to be yielded such Judgments as do appertain without other Process wheresoever we know the right Truth as Judges Neither was this to be taken saith Mr. Lambard to be meant of the Kings Bench where there is only an imaginary presence of His Person but it must necessarily be understood of a Jurisdiction remaining and left in the Kings Royal Body and Breast distinct from that of His Bench and other ordinary Courts because he doth immediately after severally set forth by themselves as well the Authority of the Kings Bench as of the other Courts And that this was no new-made Law Mr. Lambard puts us in mind of a Saxon Law of King Edgar's Nemo in lite Regem appellato c. Let no man in Suit appeal unto the King unless he cannot get Right at home but if that Right be too Heavy for him then let him go to the King to have it eased By which it may evidently appear that even so many years ago there might be Appellation made to the Kings Person whensoever the Cause should enforce it The very like Law in Effect is to be seen in the Laws of Canutus the Dane sometimes King of this Realm out of which Law Master Lambard gathers that the King himself had a High Court of Justice wherein it seemeth He sate in Person for the words be Let him not seek to the King and the same Court of the King did judge not only according to meer Right and Law but also after Equity and good Conscience For the Close I shall end with the Suffrage of our late Antiquary Sir Henry Spelman in his Glossary he saith Omnis Regni Justitia solius Regis est c. All Justice of the Kingdom is only the King 's and He alone if He were able should administer it but that being impossible He is forced to delegate it to Ministers whom he bounds by the limits of the Laws the positive Laws are only about Generals in particular Cases they are sometimes too strict sometimes too remiss and so oft Wrong instead of Right will be done if we stand to strict Law also Causes hard and difficult daily arise which are comprehended in no Law-books in those there is a necessity of running back to the King the Fountain of Justice and the Vicegerent of God himself who in the Commonwealth of the Jews took such Causes to His own cognisance and left

much as the Natural Law of a Father which binds them to ratifie the Acts of their ForeFathers and Predecessors in things necessary for the Publick Good of their Subjects 7. Others there be that affirm that although Laws of themselves do not bind Kings yet the Oaths of Kings at their Coronations tye them to keep all the Laws of their Kingdoms How far this is true let us but examine the Oath of the Kings of England at their Coronation the words whereof are these Art thou pleased to cause to be administred in all thy Judgments indifferent and upright Justice and to use Discretion with Mercy and Verity Art thou pleased that our upright Laws and Customs be observed and dost thou promise that those shall be protected and maintained by thee These two are the Articles of the King's Oath which concern the Laity or Subjects in General to which the King answers affirmatively Being first demanded by the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Pleaseth it you to confirm and observe the Laws and Customs of Ancient Times granted from God by just and devout Kings unto the English Nation by Oath unto the said People Especially the Laws Liberties and Customs granted unto the Clergy and Laity by the famous King Edward We may observe in these Words of the Articles of the Oath that the King is required to observe not all the Laws but only the Upright and that with Discretion and Mercy The Word Upright cannot mean all Laws because in the Oath of Richard the Second I find Evil and Unjust Laws mentioned which the King swears to abolish and in the Old Abridgment of Statutes set forth in Henry the Eighth's days the King is to swear wholly to put out Evil Laws which he cannot do if he be bound to all Laws Now what Laws are Upright and what Evil who shall Judge but the King since he swears to administer Upright Justice with Discretion and Mercy or as Bracton hath it aequitatem praecipiat misericordiam So that in effect the King doth swear to keep no Laws but such as in His Judgment are Upright and those not literally always but according to Equity of his Conscience joyn'd with Mercy which is properly the Office of a Chancellour rather than of a Judge and if a King did strictly swear to observe all the Laws he could not without Perjury give his Consent to the Repealing or Abrogating of any Statute by Act of Parliament which would be very mischievable to the State But let it be supposed for Truth that Kings do swear to observe all the Laws of their Kingdom yet no man can think it reason that Kings should be more bound by their Voluntary Oaths than Common Persons are by theirs Now if a private person make a Contract either with Oath or without Oath he is no further bound than the Equity and Justice of the Contract ties him for a Man may have Relief against an unreasonable and unjust Promise if either Deceit or Error or Force or Fear induced him thereunto Or if it be hurtful or grievous in the performance Since the Laws in many Cases give the King a Prerogative above common Persons I see no Reason why he should be denied the Priviledg which the meanest of his Subjects doth enjoy Here is a fit place to examine a Question which some have moved Whether it be a Sin for a Subject to disobey the King if he Command any thing contrary to his Laws For satisfaction in this point we must resolve that not only in Humane Laws but even in Divine a thing may be commanded contrary to Law and yet Obedience to such a Command is necessary The sanctifying of the Sabbath is a Divine Law yet if a Master command his Servant not to go to Church upon a Sabbath-Day the best Divines teach us That the Servant must obey this Command though it may be Sinful and Unlawfull in the Master because the Servant hath no Authority or Liberty to examine and judge whether his Master sin or no in so commanding For there may be a just Cause for a Master to keep his Servant from Church as appears Luke 14.5 yet it is not fit to tie the Master to acquaint his Servant with his secret Counsels or present Necessity And in such Cases the Servant 's not going to Church becomes the Sin of the Master and not of the Servant The like may be said of the King 's commanding a Man to serve him in the Wars he may not examine whether the War be Just or Unjust but must Obey since he hath no Commission to Judge of the Titles of Kingdoms or Causes of War nor hath any Subject Power to Condemn his King for breach of his own Laws 8. Many will be ready to say It is a Slavish and Dangerous Condition to be subject to the Will of any One Man who is not subject to the Laws But such Men consider not 1. That the Prerogative of a King is to be above all Laws for the good only of them that are under the Laws and to defend the Peoples Liberties as His Majesty graciously affirmed in His Speech after His last Answer to the Petition of Right Howsoever some are afraid of the Name of Prerogative yet they may assure themselves the Case of Subjects would be desperately miserable without it The Court of Chancery it self is but a Branch of the King's Prerogative to Relieve men against the inexorable rigour of the Law which without it is no better than a Tyrant since Summum Jus is Summa Injuria General Pardons at the Coronation and in Parliaments are but the Bounty of the Prerogative 2. There can be no Laws without a Supreme Power to command or make them In all Aristocraties the Nobles are above the Laws and in all Democraties the People By the like Reason in a Monarchy the King must of necessity be above the Laws there can be no Soveraign Majesty in him that is under them that which giveth the very Being to a King is the Power to give Laws without this Power he is but an Equivocal King It skills not which way Kings come by their Power whether by Election Donation Succession or by any other means for it is still the manner of the Government by Supreme Power that makes them properly Kings and not the means of obtaining their Crowns Neither doth the Diversity of Laws nor contrary Customs whereby each Kingdom differs from another make the Forms of Common-Weal different unless the Power of making Laws be in several Subjects For the Confirmation of this point Aristotle saith That a perfect Kingdom is that wherein the King rules all things according to his Own Will for he that is called a King according to the Law makes no kind of Kingdom at all This it seems also the Romans well understood to be most necessary in a Monarchy for though they were a People most greedy of Liberty yet the Senate did free Augustus from all Necessity of Laws that he

it such an evil as the party that suffers or the publick cannot be accessory to let the case be never so small yet if there be illegality in the act it strikes at the very being of limited Monarchy which is to be legal unless our Author will say as in effect he doth That his limited Monarch must govern according to Law in great and publick matters only and that in smaller matters which concern private men or poor persons he may rule according to his own will Secondly our Author tells us If the Monarchs act of exorbitancy or transgression be mortal and such as suffered dissolves the frame of Government and publick liberty then the illegality is to be set open and redresment sought by petition which if failing prevention by resistance ought to be and if it be apparent and appeal be made to the consciences of mankind then the fundamental Laws of that Monarchy must judge and pronounce the sentence in every mans conscience and every man so far as concerns him must follow the evidence of Truth in his own soul to oppose or not to oppose according as he can in conscience acquit or condemn the act of the Governour or Monarch Whereas my Author requires that the destructive nature of illegal commands shall be set open Surely his mind is That each private man in his particular case should make a publick remonstrance to the World of the illegal act of the Monarch and then if upon his Petition he cannot be relieved according to his desire he ought or it is his duty to make resistance Here I would know who can be the Judge whether the illegality be made apparent It is a main point since every man is prone to flatter himself in his own cause and to think it good and that the wrong or injustice he suffers is apparent when other moderate and indifferent men can discover no such thing and in this case the judgment of the common people cannot be gathered or known by any possible means or if it could it were like to be various and erroneous Yet our Author will have an Appeal made to the Conscience of all Mankind and that being made he concludes The Fundamental Laws must judge and pronounce Sentence in every mans Conscience Whereas he saith The Fundamental Laws must judge I would very gladly learn of him or of any other for him what a Fundamental Law is or else have but any one Law named me that any man can say is a Fundamental Law of the Monarchy I confess he tells us That the Common Laws are the foundation and the Statute Laws are superstructive yet I think he dares not say that there is any one branch or part of the Common Law but that it may be taken away by an Act of Parliament for many points of the Common Law de facto have and de jure any point may be taken away How can that be called Fundamental which hath and may be removed and yet the Statute-Laws stand firm and stable It is contrary to the nature of Fundamental for the building to stand when the foundation is taken away Besides the Common Law is generally acknowledged to be nothing else but common usage or custom which by length of time only obtains authority So that it follows in time after Government but cannot go before it and be the rule to Government by any original or radical Constitution Also the Common Law being unwritten doubtful and difficult cannot but be an uncertain rule to govern by which is against the nature of a Rule which is and ought to be certain Lastly by making the Common Law only to be the foundation Magna Charta is excluded from being a Fundamental Law and also all other Statutes from being limitations to Monarchy since the Fundamental Laws only are to be Judge Truly the Conscience of all mankind is a pretty large Tribunal for the Fundamental Laws to pronounce Sentence in It is very much that Laws which in their own nature are dumb and always need a Judge to pronounce Sentence should now be able to speak and pronounce Sentence themselves Such a Sentence surely must be upon the hearing of one party only for it is impossible for a Monarch to make his defence and answer and produce his Witnesses in every mans conscience in each mans Cause who will but question the legality of the Monarchs Government Certainly the sentence cannot but be unjust where but one mans tale is heard For all this the conclusion is Every man must oppose or not oppose the Monarch according to his own conscience Thus at the last every man is brought by this Doctrine of our Authors to be his own Judge And I also appeal to the consciences of all mankind whether the end of this be not utter confusion and Anarchy Yet after all this the Author saith This power of every mans judging the illegal acts of the Monarch argues not a Superiority of those who judge over him who is judged and he gives a profound reason for it his words are It is not authoritative and civil but moral residing in reasonable creatures and lawful for them to execute What our Author means by these words not authoritative and civil but moral perhaps I understand not though I think I do yet it serves my turn that he saith That resistance ought to be made and every man must oppose or not oppose according as in conscience he can acquit or condemn the acts of his Governour for if it enable a man to resist and oppose his Governour without question 't is authoritative and civil Whereas he adds That moral judgment is residing in reasonable creatures and lawful for them to execute he seems to imply that authoritative and civil Judgment doth not reside in reasonable creatures nor can be lawfully executed Such a Conclusion fits well with Anarchy for he that takes away all Government and leaves every man to his own conscience and so makes him an independent in State may well teach that authority resides not in reasonable creatures nor can be lawfully executed I pass from his absolute and limited Monarchy to his division or partition for he allows no division of Monarchy into simple and mixed viz. of a Monarch the Nobility and Community Where first observe a doubt of our Authors Whether a firm union can be in a mixture of equality he rather thinks there must be a priority of order in one of the three or else there can be no unity He must know that priority of order doth not hinder but that there may be an equality of mixture if the shares be equal for he that hath the first share may have no more than the others so that if he will have an inequality of mixture a primity of share will not serve the turn the first share must be greater or better than the others or else they will be equal and then he cannot call it a mixed Monarchy where only