Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	according_a	conscience_n	law_n	1,864	5	5.1678	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41219	The resolving of conscience upon this question whether upon such a supposition or case as is now usually made (the King will not discharge his trust, but is bent or seduced to subvert religion, laws, and liberties) subjects may take arms and resist, and whether that case be now ... / by H. Fern.	Ferne, H. (Henry), 1602-1662.	1642 (1642)	Wing F802; ESTC R25400	33,929	69

governed by such of whose prudence and moderation they had experience and then Arbitria Principum pro legibus erant the will and discretion of the Prince was Law unto the People but Men were Men though in Gods place and therefore for the restraint of that Power with consent of the Prince such Laws have been still procured by the People as might make for their security Now from a promise the King makes for doing Justice the duty of every Prince for the continuing those Priviledges immunities that have been granted or restored to the People and for the observing of those Laws that have been established with the Princes consent and from that oath by which for the greater security of the People he binds himself to the performance of the premises to infer a great obligation lyeth upon him is right but to gather thence a forfeiture of his power upon the not performance is a plain but dangerous inconsequent Argument And though such Argument may seem to have some force in States meerly elective and pactionall yet can it never be made to appear to any indifferent understanding that the like must obtain in this Kingdome And to this purpose Phil. Pareus excuseth what his Father had written more harshly upon the 13. to the Romans in the point of Resistence that it was to be understood of elective and pactionall government not to the prejudice of England or such Monarchies For where the King as it is said never dyes where he is King before oath or coronation where he is not admitted upon any such capitulation as gives any power to the People or their representative body as is pretended to Nay where that body cannot meet but by the will of the Prince and is dissoluble at his pleasure that there in such a State such a power should be pretended to and used against the Prince as at this day and that according to the fundamentalls of such a State can never appear reasonable to any indifferent judgement much lesse satisfie Conscience in the resistence that is now made by such a pretended power What then shall we say Is the King not bound to perform Yes by all means Or ha's he not a limited power according to the Lawes Yes What then if he will take to himself more power or not perform what he is bound to Suppose that though thanks be to God we are not come to that Then may the Subjects use all fair means as are fit to use cryes to God petitions to the Prince denials of obedience to his unlawfull commands denials of subsidie ayd c. But are they left without all means to compell by force and resistence This however it may at first sight seem unreasonable to the people and very impolitick to the Statesman yet ha's Scripture forbidden it as before was plainly shewed and so doth Reason too as will apeare in the examination of their last proofe they make for re-assuming this power and resisting from that necessity of means of safety which every State is to have within it self Of which now SECT. V. IN the last place it is thus reasoned Were it not so that the two Houses might take and use this power the State should not have means to provide for its own safety when the King shall please to desert His Parliament deny His consent to their Bills abuse His power c. So they When right and Just will not defend a thing then Necessity is usually pleaded as if because Salus Populi in a good sense is Suprema Lex every thing must be honest which is Spartae Vtile imagined to conduce to the proposed end We answer therefore First They have many weapons sharpened for this resistence at the Philistins forge arguments borrowed from the Romane schools among them this is one the very reason that is made for the Popes power of curbing or deposing Kings in case of Heresie For if there be not that power in the Church say they then in case the Civill Magistrate will not discharge his trust the Church ha's not means for the maintenance of the Catholick faith and its own safety Well as we reply to them the Church has means of preserving the faith such as God ha's appointed though not that of one Visible head which though at first seems plausible for preserving the Unity of faith yet ha's experience shown it to be indeed the meanes to bring much mischief upon the Church So to the other we say The State ha's meanes of preservation such as the Law ha's prescibed though not such as are here pretented to in this power of resistence which though seemingly plausible yet true Reason will conclude them dangerous and at this day God knows we see it Of this in the fourth answer more particularly Secondly If every State ha's such means to provide for its safety What means of safety had the Christian Religion under the Romane Emperours in and after the Apostles times or the people then enslaved what means had they for their Liberties had they this of resistence Tertullian in his Apol. sayes the Christians had number and force sufficient to withstand but they had no warrant and the Apostle expressely forbids them and all other under the higher power to resist If it be replyed as it was above touched That things being so enacted by Law it was not lawfull for them to resist I answer But it is known that not onely those Edicts which concerned Christian Religion but also all other that proceeded from those Emperours and enslaved the people were meerly arbitrary and enforced upon the Senate and that the Senate did not discharge their trust in consenting to them and therefore according to the former position the people might resist notwithstanding the Apostles prohibition or else no means of safety left in that State So would it be in this State if at any time a King that would rule arbitrarily as those Emperours did should by some meanes or other work out of the two Houses the better affected and by the Consent of the Major part of them that remaine compasse his desires might the people then resist The Apostle forbids it to them as well as to the Romans in such a case if so where are these means of safety by this power of resistance Or are these means of safety extinct in the Consent of the Senate or the two Houses No the people will tell them they discharge not their trust they chose them not to betray them enslave them but according to the principles now taught them they might lay hold upon this power of resistence for their representative body claims it by them Thirdly we answer We cannot expect absolute means of safety and securitie in a State but such as are reasonable and such are provided especially in the fundamentalls of this Government by that excellent temper of the three estates in Parliament there being a power of denying in each of them and no power of enacting in one or

omnibus ordinibus regni consentientibus agreed upon and undertaken by the generall and unanimous consent of the whole State and that it should be onely Legitima defensio a meer defensive resistence and these laid down not that I admit resistence however conditioned for all that I have said before doth altogether condemn it but according to their own grants that plead for it To this purpose it is that they say the King is Vniversis minor lesse then the whole State and every body naturally defends it self Therefore if a contention be between the Plead and the Body it must in all reason be the whole Body that is set against it and if there be such an appearing against the supreme Power as tends to resistence the consent and judgement of the whole Kingdom must be against him or else every prevailing faction might indanger the State by causing such changes and evils as now it 's threatned with This is the reason of this unreasonable power of resistence in the people Well then how shall Conscience he perswaded that this resistence was agreed upon by an unanimous and free consent of the States assembled in the two Houses such as in this case may be called the judgement of the whole kingdome He that knows how the Militia in which this resistence chiefly began was brought in with what opposition especially in the Lords house and by what number there at length was voted also how the like proceedings of resistence that have been voted since are declared against by a greater number of each House then do remain in either such as have been cast out or withdrawn themselves upon dislike of these proceedings can he I say that knows this and who knows it not that hath eyes and eares be in Conscience perswaded that this is such an unanimous free and generall consent the judgement of the whole kingdome For though a Vote passed by a few upon the place ha's the power and condition of a Vote for the formality of Law yet if the question be Was this passed in full assemblies Was it freely and generally carried Did they all unanimously as one man consent unto it Conscience cannot be convinced there is such efficacy in the place as to make a few the whole or their agreement to be that judgement of the whole kingdome that unanimous consent which must be in the case of resistence by their acknowledgement that plead for it For were it in this case to be held for the judgement of the whole which is passed by a few then would the State be unreasonably exposed to that danger above mentioned which every prevailing faction might bring upon it under the pretence of the judgement of the whole kingdome Again is Conscience cannot be truely perswaded that this resistence is agreed upon with such a generall and unanimous consent as they themselves pretend to which pleade for this resistence so can it not be truely perswaded that this resistence is such for the meer defensive way of it as it ought to be according to their grants and pretences that appear for it Conscience here will see how to resolve upon the triall of these two particulars Whether the King or they be upon the defensive part then Whether the managing of this warre or resistence on their parts be so void of hostile acts as the defensive way which they pretend to ought to be Conscience will discern whether part is upon the defensive by inquiring First Who were first in Arms He that can number the succession of weeks and moneths in his Almanack may decide this He shall find that armed men were thrust into Hull the Kings Arms seized against his will the Militia set up and by that the Kings Subjects drawn into Arms before the King had any thing to oppose but Proclamations that subscriptions for Plate Money Horse that listing of souldiers for the field and appointing of Officer of the Army were begun upon their part before His Majesty did the like Now resistence doth in the word it self and in their pretence presuppose a power and force first made against them where as it is plain they were still upon the preventing and forehand with the Kin● still shewed him example for what he has done since in the way of Warre yet must the people believe he raises the Warre and they are upon defence But Conscience will not be so forced Secondly by inquiring what is the c●●se of these Arms What do they contend for And though it be clear that if Subjects be first in A●●s they cannot be upon the defensive yet the consideration of the cause will more apparantly convince it when Conscience shall see it is not for what is pretended but for something the King ha's right to deny that this resistence is made The preservation of Religion and Liberties is pretended but can it be for either The King denyes them not Their Religon they freely enjoy and was it ever known that Subjects should rise in Arms against their Prince for a Religion which he promiseth to maintain Or does Religion stand in need of a defense which it self condemnes a defence which would be a perpetuall scandall to it If therefore Religion be the pretence but no cause of Warre then is the Warre raised on their part the King is upon the defensive Or can it be for antient Rights and undoubted Priviledges that they contend The King denyes them not promiseth all security so he may enjoy his own and God forbid that either He or they should suffer in their just Rights But would any man ever have defended the revolt of the ten Tribes if Rehoboam had promised to conserve their Liberties What shall we then think of this geneall Revolt from Allegiance that ha's possessed well-near ten Tribes of twelve They suppose he will not make good his promises and therefore they will make all sure seize his Arms and Forts strip him of all and if begin to stirre for his own Right and Dignity then the people must be made to believe he makes warre against his Parliament intends to destroy their Liberties But can any man in Conscience think his Majesty since the beginning of this breach was ever in such a Condition of strength as might threaten the Libertie of the Subject or destroy Parliaments when as it was long ere he could with much ado attain to any reasonable means of subsistence or to such a strength whereby he might seem to be able to defend himself To speak the truth Religion and Liberties can be no other then the pretences of this Warre the King ha's fortified them so with many Acts of Grace passed this Parliament that they cannot be in that danger which is pretended for the raising of this Warr It must be something that his Majesty does indeed deny for which the contention is raised That we shall find to be His Power of Arms and ordering the Militia of the Kingdome His Power of denying in Parliament His disposing of the

offices of State and such like Also the Government of the Church and the Revenue of it In the three former he challenges his right as his Predecessours had the other he is bound by Oath to maintaine as by Law they are established Well if these be attempted and his Majesty will not be forced from them cannot yeild them up but it comes to Arms then will Conscience easily be convinced the King is upon the defensive for the maintaining of what he justly holds his right or is bound by Oath to defend And if we hearken to the peoples voice for that commonly speaks the mind of their leaders we shall hear them usually call this Warre as they did that with the Scots The Bishops Warre His Majesty has indeed alwayes declared against the altering of the Government of the Church by Bishops being such as it alwayes had since the first receiving of the Christian Faith in this land and of all other Governments simply the best if reformed from abuses and corruptions that have grown upon it to the purging out of which His Majesty is alwayes ready to agree But be it the Bishops Warre though the abolishing of that Government be but one of the many inconveniences which this Power of resistence doth threaten this Land with and which the King has reason by Power of Arms to divert whether is it so just in Subjects by Arms to force a change of Government which was alwayes in the Church and by Law established as it is in the King to defend the same as he is bound by Oath it is clear which of the two are upon the defensive The second particular by which the defensive way of this resistance is to be examined was the managing of this Warre on their parts whether so void of acts of Hostility as that defensive way should be which they pretend to Davids resistence made against Saul is frequently alledged by them which example though it will not countenance their cause as was shewed before yet might it tell them their demeanor should be answerable He offered no act of violence to Saul but still gave place and withdrew from him the Spear indeed and the Cruse David tooke away from the Kings head but it was onely to shew Abners neglect who had the Command of Sauls Militia and to testifie his own integrity therefore he restored them before they were demanded 1 Sam 26. But now the Kings Spear and his Cruse his Ammunition and His necessary Provisions are taken away intercepted not restored though often demanded used against Him with all advantage nay he is stript of the very Power and Command of Arms His Officers and Ministers thrust out and other substituted and by them His People drawn into Arms against Him Also by these that are in resistence against the King His Loyall and Peaceable Subjects are assaulted despoiled of their Arms Goods Estates their Persons Imprisoned because they would according to their Allegiance assist Him in this extremity or would not contrary to their Conscience joyn with them against Him What Conscience that will not follow this way with a stupid implicit faith can be perswaded that this Warre is the defence of the Subjects Liberties and not rather an oppugnation of them or that it is a meer resistence or withstanding of a force first made against them and not rather a violent illation or bringing in of force upon those that were disposed to Peace Therefore no Conscience that ha's a sense of Religion or of that which is just and right between Man and Man can beare a part in this resistence for fear of that sentence of damnation which the Apostle ha's laid upon it SECT. VII BUt in the last place if Conscience could be perswaded that it is lawfull upon such a case as they make to take Arms and resist and that this rising in Arms is such a defensive resistence as in such a case they seem to pretend to yet how will it be perswaded that the Case is now that is That the King is such as the people must be made to believe he is unles it will as desperately offend against the rule of Charitie in so concluding upon the King as it does against the rule of Faith and Perswasion in admitting so uugrounded a principle as is now rested on for resistence so that such a Conscience shall have in its perswasion neither certainty of Rule for the principle it goes on is false nor certainty of the Case for it knows not the heart of the King to conclude for resistence upon supposals of his intentions and in its judgement it will be altogether void of Charitie Indeed it concerns all such as will resist upon the principles now taught to render their Prince odious to his people under the hatefull notions of Tyrant Subverter of Religion and Laws a Person not to be trusted or at least as one seduced to such evil designes by wicked Counsel But what Hath this King forbid the exercise of the Religion established or left off to professe it himselfe hath he disclaimed his trust or not upon all occasions promised justice and libertie to his Subjects Yea but they have cause to fear Popery will prevail and that he will not stand to his promises It seems thy are men that would be loath to suffer for their Religion they are so ready to fly to Arms to secure themselves But shall subjects rise in Arms against their Prince upon such remote fears and jealousies as these will appear to be When can such be wanting in turbulent minds When shall the Prince be assured of safety This was the way that David himself was shaken out of his Throne and driven from Jerusalem by Absolom This cunning Rebell steals away their hearts by raysing jealousies in them and an evill opinion of Davids government 2. Sam. 15. 3. Some ground it seems he had for his treacherous plea through the negligence of those that were under David but it was his villanie to make use of it to the alienating of the People from their King Accordingly let us now consider what slender grounds our People have for their fears and jealousies then what security they have and mightt have against them that it may appear how causelesse those jealousies are in themselves how unjust causes of this resistence If we examine the fears and jealousies that have possessed the People we shall find them to be raised upon these or the like grounds Reports of Forraign Power to be brought in The Queens Religion The resort of Papists to His Majesty His intercepting of means sent for the reliefe of Ireland from whence the People by their good teachers are made to believe that He means to enslave this People re-establish Popery and does comply with the Rebels In answer to all which I needed not to say more then what Michael the Arch-Angell to the Devill that arch-accuser The Lord rebuke thee Jude 9. but in particular For such reports of invasion from