Selected quad for the lemma: head_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
head_n body_n king_n politic_a 2,735 5 10.6730 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A30985 Several miscellaneous and weighty cases of conscience learnedly and judiciously resolved / by the Right Reverend Father in God, Dr. Thomas Barlow ... Barlow, Thomas, 1607-1691. 1692 (1692) Wing B843; ESTC R21506 129,842 472

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Positive Law that all the seed of Abraham should be Circumcised the eighth day on pain of being cut off from his People And yet the Obligation of that Divine Positive Law ceased for forty years while they wander'd in the Wilderness and yet Moses their Supreme Power did neither Punish according to the Letter of the Law nor blame them for it 2. It was a Divine Positive Law that they should keep the Passover on the Fourteenth day of the first Moneth and yet there were several Cases wherein the Obligation of that Law ceased so that they did not sin though they did not that day eat the Passover For if any one was casually unclean by touching a dead body or if he were on a journey c. the Obligation of that Law ceased as to him and he sin'd not though he did not eat the Passover on the day appointed by the Law 3. The Sanctification of the Sabbath as to that particular day was injoyn'd by a Divine Positive Law and by that Law it was capital to violate the Sabbath or do any of our own Work the Worship of God Almighty being the proper and only work of that day And yet it is certain and on all sides confess'd that in many Cases the Obligation of that Law ceaseth so that we may lawfully do that which otherwise to the Jews was Capital If an Enemy invade our Country or a City be set on fire on the Sabbath or our Lord's day we may lawfully take Arms to defend our Country and the Church and Divine Service left make haste and labour hard to quench the fire and save the City Now as to the aforementioned Divine Positive Laws there may be many Cases wherein their Obligation ceases so that the Punishment otherwise required by those Laws may lawfully be pardoned So in this Law given to Noah there have been and may be several Cases wherein that Law does not bind ad Poenam and so the Murderer may lawfully be pardon'd 3. And it is further to be consider'd that this Law de Homicidio given to Noah does neither expressly say nor by any good consequence intimate that the Supreme Power shall not in any Case pardon a condemn'd Murderer It only declares death to be the just reward and punishment of Murder but it does not say that it must necessarily be always executed so that no Pardon in no case is to be admitted 4. And it is certain and in our present case more considerable That Jacobs two Sons Simeon and Levi were guilty of Murder and yet were pardon'd notwithstanding the Law given to Noah Sure it is that they were neither sentenc'd nor put to death for their Murders but long after went down into Egypt with Jacob their Father and died there Though they had impiously and abundantly shed Man's blood yet their blood was not shed for it Tho Jacob their Father and Isaac who was then living were the Supreme Powers in the then Church of God consisting in the seed of Abraham and had power to do it Nor could those Patriarchs Isaac and Jacob be ignorant of the Law given to Noah seeing Noah himself lived till the fifty seventh year of Abraham and died only forty three years before Isaac's birth Now considering the persons of these two great Patriarchs that they were Prophets men of exceeding Piety and beloved of God we may be sure they would not have transgressed that Law given by God to Noah if they had believed that the Obligation of it was such as excluded all possibility of Pardon In short if those pious Patriarchs might pardon Murder then I desire to know why Supreme Princes in some cases may not pardon it now 5. Lastly I ask Did that Law given to Noah bind David and the Jews in his time or did it not If not how comes it to bind us now above 2700 years after David's death If it did bind David then so as no pardon was to be permitted or granted to a Murderer it is not probable that David a Prophet and the best of Kings would have transgress'd that Divine Law and pardon'd Absolom Especially if we consider that his other known sins as Murder Adultery Numbring the People c. are confess'd by him and in Scripture mentioned as his sins but his pardoning Absolom is no where in Scripture confess'd by him or laid to his charge as a transgression of any Law Sed manum de Tabula I desire you to ask those who made the former Objection against the King's power of pardoning Murder from the Law given to Noah and think the Laws given to Noah still Obligatory How it comes to pass that in the same place the first Law given to Noah is a Prohibition to eat any Blood which is confirm'd by Moses and no where abrogated And yet all Papists and Protestants eat Blood notwithstanding that Law of God to Noah forbidding it I desire to know of the Gentleman who made the Objection which I hope I have probably answer'd why the second Law given to Noah Gen. 9. 6. about Murder should be binding and yet the first Law Gen. 9. 4. against eating Blood should not be binding too He who can and will solve me this doubt will do me a kindness which if any few can I am Your Faithful Friend and Servant T. L. THE CASE OF Pardoning Murder The CASE of Pardoning MURDER Query Whether it be lawful for his Sacred Majesty to Reprive or Pardon a Person convict and legally condemned for Murder My Honoured Friend ALthough I well know your Loyalty to be as much and your Learning and Knowledg of the Laws and their Obligation to be more than mine yet according to your command and my promise I have here sent you a Compendium and short Account of some Discourses I lately had with some who seem'd to doubt Whether our Gracious Soveraign could reprive or pardon a person legally condemned for Murder For a distinct answer to this Query I consider 1. That it is certain that all we Subjects are by the indispensable law of God and Nature bound next to our good God the great King of Heaven and Earth to honour and obey our Gracious Soveraign and that not only for fear of punishment but for Conscience lake So that to do or speak or think dishonourably of the Lord Anointed our King and to question and deny any of the Rights of his Crown and Prerogatives is in all Subjects disloyal and impious In the Natural Body if there be any blemish or disease in the head if it be in any danger from without all the members of the body the dictates of Right Reason and the principles of Nature requiring it will industriously concur to cover and conceal that blemish to cure that disease and prevent all danger that may happen to the Head So in the Body Politick if the King the Head of that Body have any errors or
others who in the time of Tarquin it seems found the Prince more exorable Nay the very Divines themselves help with their Fallacies to oppugn this Doctrine by making us believe as I said before that it is God's Will all Princes should be Absolute and are so far in a Conspiracy against Mankind that they assert that in the Text This shall the Manner of your King be God was giving that People the Jus Divinum of Government when in truth he was threatning them with Plagues of Monarchy But I spare the Divines here since I shall have occasion in discoursing of my next Accusation to shew how that sort of People have dealt with God's Truths and with the Interest of Men. And to be as good as my Word I shall presently fall upon that Point having been so tedious already in the former FINIS ERRATA Mr. Cottington's Case PAge 17. after the last word dele the Period p. 63. for Appella read Apella P. 72. line 2 f. excuse r. execute P. 117. l. 12. f. Tulin r. Turin P. 119. f. Monoch r. Menoch P. 127. l. antepenult f. Roe r. Rote P. 131. l. 6. f. senim r. enim The Case of the Jews In Title-Leaf r. Republica P. 8. in margine r. videsis P. 14. near the end r. vigilant P. 26. l. 2. r. practised P. 43. l. penult r. Practices P. 63. l. 7. r. principal Ibid. f. two r. too P. 70. l. 5. after was add not Vide Hist. H. 4. France by the Bp of Rhodes and Monsieur D'Ossat 's Letters Davila lib. 3. The M. of Hallifax a Privilegia quae contemplatione Religionis indulta sunt catholicae tantum Legis observatoribus prodesse oportet Haereticos autem Schismaticos ab his privilegiis alienos esse volumus Imperat. Constantinus ad Dracilianum l. 1. de Haereticis in Cod. Theodosiano pag. 493 Query Answer a Minutius Felix Octav. pag. 77. * Libertas inastimabilis res est Paul c. 2. ad Edict Leg. 106. Stat. de Reg. Juris And again Infinita aestimatio est libertatis Id. l. 13. ad Plantiam F. de R. Juris l. 176. Sec finali * By Populus I understand the whole Body Politick Head and Members King and People and not the People only in opposition to the King Appellatione populi viri cives significantur connumeratis Patriciis Senatoribus Instit. de Jure Nat. Gentium Civili L. Lex est * Vid. Gratian. Gaen 2 3 4. Causa 16. Quest. 6. Innocent Part. 5. Cap. ultimo c. * Vid. Concil Lateran sub Innocent 3. Can. 3. de Haereticis apud Petr. Crabb Tom. 2. pag 948. Col. 1. Concil Trident. Seyalt 25. de Reformation cap. 19. cap. 20. ubi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sic habet Cogantur omnes Principes Catholici conservare omnia sancita quibus immunias Ecclesiastica declara † Bellarminus de Romano Pontisic lib. 5. cap. 6. c. The supreme Power of this Nation by Act of Parliament command all to come to Common-Prayers and so all did Papists and Protestants till 11º Eliz. The Pope Julius 5. by his Bull forbids it The Papists obey him not the Act of Parliament * Gratia Can. Alius 3. Lucet 6. Can. 16. † Gratian. Can. Nulli 5. Dist. 19. † Gratian Can. in Canonicis 6 Distinct 19. Canon Enim verò 4. Ibidem * Idem ibidem Can. sic omnes 2. Juv. Part. 4. cap. 238. † Vid. Constit. Impp. Honorii Theod. in Append. Cod. Theod. Theod. pag. 31. contra Donatistas c. aliam Constit ibid. pag. 38. ubi ●idem Imperatores in Donatistas Pacis Ecclesiae turbatores sententiâ capitali Vindicant Et Cod. Theodosii L. si quis 31. de Episcopis † Seneca de Beneficiis lib. 3. cap. 6. num 27. pag. 38. in Edit Just. Lipsii H. Grotius de Jure Belli lib. 2. cap. 20. Sect. 50. pag. 345. † Lipsius in locum Senecae praedictum num 27. pag. 47. * Institut de Capitis diminut L. Maxima Query Answer Object * He●● Altingius Problem Theolog Part 2. Probl. 20. pag 337. Williel Zepperu Legum Mosaicarum Forens Lib 4. cap. 5. p. 258. Answ. † In such cases the Magistrate is and ought to be Nutritius Ecclesiae and Defensor fidei and may use the Sword against those who abuse it against the Church Act. 9. 5. Joh. 18. 36. Act. 5. 3 4 5. Act. 13. 11. Object 2. † Hen. Altingius Problem Theol. Part. 2. Problem 29. Pag. 333. Will. Zepperus in Explication LL. Mosaic Lib. 4. cap. 3. pag. 262. Calvin in Luc. 14. 23. pag. 182. August Epist. 50. ad Bonifacium alibi passim Answer * Vid. Gro●●um in Luc. 14. 2 3. de Jure Belli Lib. 2. cap. 20. Sect. 48. pag. 345. to the same purpose Dr. Hammond's Diodati the Assembly-Divines c. on Luc. 14. 23. * Theophyl in Luc. 14. 23. Pag. 438. c. † So Mat. 14. 22. Mark 6. 45. Gal. 11. 14. Vid. Grot. loco supra Citato Vide Theophylactum in loc c Reas. 2. Joh. 6. 6 7 Grotius in Joh. 6. 67. Athanasius Epistolâ ad Solitariam Vitam agentes Chrysost. in Joh. 6. 67. Idem habet Cyprian Epist. 55. a Mat. 13. 28 29. b Vers. 38. c Vers. 39. d Glossa ad Cap. Statuimus 4. Distinct 4. apud Gratianum Theophylact. in Mat. 13. pag. 77. A. B. Reas. 3. b Concil Toletanum 4. cap. 5. c Gratian. cap. de Jud. 5. Dist. 45. * Glossa ad dictum cap. 5. de Jud. Dist. 45. Reas. 4. Grotius de Jure Belli l. 2. cap. 20. Sect. 9. Salmanus de Arianis Haeretici sunt sed non scientes apud nos sunt haeretici apud se non sunt veritas apud nos est sed illi apud so esse Praesumunt Errant ergo sed bono animo errant non odio sed affectu Dei honorare se dominum credentes Et qualiter pro hoc ipso falsae opinionis errore in die judicii puniendi sunt ●cmo potest scire nisi judex c. * Seneca de Beneficiis 1. 3. cap. 7. Augustinus * Grotius de Jure Belli lib. 2. cap. 20. Sect. 50. Reas. 5. * See many Reasons for this in the Lord Faulkland's Reply pag. 224 225 c. † Vid. August de Haeresibus in Praefat. pag. 32. Edit in 80. * Aquin. 2. 2. Quest. 11. Art 2. Commentat ejus ibidem Filiucius Tractat 22. cap. 6. Sect. 152. San. lib. 2. cap. 7. Azorius lib. 8. cap. 9 c. * Augustin de Civitat Dei lib. 8. cap. 51. de Origine Animae cap. 15. † L. Nullus 2. Cod. Just. de Summa Trinitat vid. Grotium in Tit. 3. 10. a Vid. Theophyl Oecumenium in Tit. 3. 10 * Aquin. 2. 2 Quest. 11. Art 2. in Conclus Ita Filiucius Azorius Navarzus alii c. See the Lord Viscount Faulkland's Reply in defence of his Tract of Infallibility pag. 217 218 219 c.