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	day_n	law_n	1,555	5	4.7752	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A81741	The northern subscribers plea, vindicated from the exceptions laid against it by the non-subscribing ministers of Lancashire and Cheshire, and re-inforced by J. Drew. Published according to order.	Drew, John, fl. 1649-1651.	1651 (1651)	Wing D2165; Thomason E638_11; ESTC R206635	62,703	75

upon the King See what the rationall Scotch-man speaks to this purpose and if he speakes not truth beleeve him not he proves by various arguments that the King is under the La● as King amongst which arguments one is this Lex Rex pag. 183 c. Else the Lord in making a King to preserve his people should give liberty without all Politick restraint for one man to destory many which is contrary to Gods end in the Fifth Commandement if one man have absolute power to destroy soules and bodies of many thousands Againe That the King should be under one Law of God to be executed by men viz. the Guardian Law of property and not under another Law Royallists are to shew a difference from Gods Word Deut. 17.20 The King on the Throne remaineth a Brother Psal 22.22 and so the Judges or three Estates are not to accept of the Person of the King for his greatnesse in Judgement Deut. 1.16 17. and the Judge is to give out such a sentence in Judgement as the Lord with whom there is no iniquity Pag. 235. c. Againe pag. 235. If God have provided that the King who is a part of the Common-wealth shall be free of all punishment though he be an habituall destroyer of the whole Kingdome seeing God hath given him to be a Father Tutor Saviour Defender thereof and destinated him as a meanes for its safety then must God have worse not better provided for the safety of the whole then of the part Againe if all the sins and oppressions of the Prince be so above the punishments that men can inflict they are not sins before men by which meanes the King is loofed from all guiltinesse of the sins against the second Table for the Ratio formalis why c. And lastly the Prelate taketh it for confessed saith our Author that it had bin Treason in the Santiedrin and States of Israel to have taken on them to judge and punish David for his Adultery Pag. 241. and for his Murther but he giveth no reason for this nor any Word of God and truly though I wil not presume to goe before others in this Gods Law Gen. 9.5 compared with Numb 35.30 31. seemeth to say against them nor can I think that Gods Law or his Deputies the Judges are to accept the persons of the great because they are great 2 Chron. 19.6 7. and we say we cannot distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not the Lord speaketh to under Judges Levit. 19.15 Thou shalt not respect the person of the poore nor honour the person of the mighty or of the Prince for we know what these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mean I grant it is not Gods meaning that the King should draw the Sword against himselfe but yet it followes not that if we speake of the DEMERIT OF BLOOD that the Law of God accepteth any Judge great or small and if the Estate be above the King as I conceive they are though it be an humane Politick constitution that the King be free of all co-action of Law because it conduceth for the peace of that Common-wealth yet if we make a matter of Conscience for my part I see no exception that God maketh if men make I crave leave to say A facto ad jus non sequitur thus far that honest publique Advocate We see all Scotch-men are not of the bloud Royall and when we heare this mans reasons Junius Brutus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I. M. senure of King c. and those which other men have brought against exempting the King from the Co-action of the Law answered we shall then thinke men have some cause and ground for their hainous resentment of the proceedings against the late King and for that great stirre they make in the world about them But suppose say they the King notwithstanding his place to be liable to capitall punishment by the Parliament it remaines to be clearly prov'd that they who did it were qualified with that power Ans We must conceive plowing with their owne Heifer that by that power they meane Parliamentary power and this is the power that they who did it were chosen to and enabled to act till they dissolved themselves that they are essentially Judges and so men competent and quallified to doe Justice is solidly asserted and demonstrated by the above-cited strenuous Author Lex Rex and though the House hath been dismembred for that we know these Ministers hint at taking the excluders for Presbyterian when indeed they were royall Martyrs though it be not so full and formall a power as we could wish yet we say againe an injury takes not away a right the remnant of them after the seclusion of some and the defection of others farre exceeding that number which by Law as we are informed makes an house and till they unhouse themselves retaine that authority to which they were elected supposing the proceedings were in some respect extraordinary yet here againe the Scotch-man who ecchoes well in Lancashire will helpe us out Elias causeth to kill the Prophets and Priests of Ball saith he 1 King 18.19 according to Gods expresse Law t is true it was extraordinary but no otherwise extraordinary then it is at this day when the supreame Magistrate will not execute the Judgement of the Lord those who made him a supreame Magistrate under God who have under God Soveraigne liberty to dispose of Crownes and Kingdomes are to execute the JVDGEMENT OF THE LORD when wicked men make the Law of God of none effect so Samuel Killed Agag whom the Lord commanded expresly to be killed because Saul disobeyed the voyce of the Lord 1 Sam. 15.32 But in the last place if this be made to appeare say the Ministers yet by vertue of religious Oathes and Vowes which have been taken we conceive the King ought to have been exempred from that proceeding Ans It was the Kings choyce ‖ See his answer to the Pet. of Right Maxime that he owed account of his actions to none but God and these men swallow it roundly of late but this Prerogative being destructive to the end of Magistracy and rendring it an inconceiveable discommode considering the corruption and temptations of great ones rather then an advantage to any people is absolutely incompatible in its owne nature to any mans person though in supreame trust this being cleare the supervention of Oathes for the preserving his person alters not the case if any such Oath or Vow be lawfull we conceive it must be conditionall since the declared minde and Lawes of God are the boundaries which men may not step beyond In priviledging their Kings if they lift them up by Oath higher then they ought to doe or invest them with impunity whatever their demerits and mis deserts may be even by destroying the Nation habitually the matter of that Oath we doe insist is res illicita and so it falls a peeces

a King of Israel and inforo Divino it is as great the high Disposer of rule and power having possest them of dominion which proceeds from him by way of Authorization as we have proved if it be his gift the summe then is this 1 That God approves of what he hath given into the hands of our present Powers what he hath given he is pleased they should have 2 That they have more given them then a naturall Power of force from the Divine concourse viz. Dominion or power of Rule therefore both the members of the distinction as we presumed above are ready to serve our turnes God having disposed of the Kingdome into their hands hath in so doing given them dominion yea though it be acknowledged for to gratifie any man as it might without impeaching their power of right that by reason of some in-direct and injustifiable actings or courses in themselves or those who have been instrumentall to their lifting up that they are not by him as Hos 8.4 and that the Lord knew it not viz. approved not the wayes of their exaltation yet we say notwithstanding the sinfulnesse of men as to their agency in the businesse Promotion commeth neither from the East nor from the West nor from the South but God is the Judge be putteth downe one and setteth up another Psal 75.6 7. Discernendum est inter jus Dei quod in res bonas nunquam amittit à quibuscunque quomodocunque teneantur inter judicia Dei quibus bona sua sic distribuit ut in eorum acquisitione usu vitium hominis aliquando concurrere permittat sic igitur de acquisitione quorundam regnorum est judicandum Pareus And since we perceive the over-flowings of your Gal in this controversie fall mainly upon the corrupt interests of persons and their indirect wayes of compassing power and dominion we shall propound and assert some particulars tending to the clearing and elucidating the matter in debate betwixt us and which may happily make way for the breaking in of (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Naz. Orat. 12. convictions upon our Consciences if you undertake to perswade us the truth is otherwise 1 Our assertion is this that God may and oft times does disclaime the interest and aimes of persons getting into power and yet owne the power in their hands as his Ordinance This will be evident from the instance of Nebuchadnezzar God gives him a charge against an hypocriticall Nation and useth him as a rod in his hand to scourge his people howbeit he meaneth not so neither doth his heart thinke so but it is in his heart to cut off Nations not a few Isa 10.6 7. God by no meanes (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synes Ep. 57. approves of that Tyrants aime or end nor of the bitternesse and hastinesse of his people who came all for violence Hab. 1.9 yet he approved of the power and dominion in Nebuchadnezzars * ver 12 17. 1 King 16. hand as his Ordinance is cleare Jer. 27. where the people are expresly commanded to put their necks under his yoke and to serve him 2 We assert That God may and often times doth disclaime the meanes and steps whereby some men are raised into the Seat of Authority and yet authorize their being there we have pregnant instances enow to prove this that of Baasha which we toucht upon before may suffice the Lord approved not of his killing Jeroboam whereby his way was made unto the Throne 1 King 16.7 yet he owned the power in Baashaes hand as his Ordinance I have made thee saith God Ruler over my people Israel vers 2. And hence we might deduce thus much for the information of Gods Servants living under such dispensations that they may lawfully own Magisteriall power in the hands of such intruders since the Lord himselfe ownes it and in this our new Annotations Rom. 13.1 will stand by us It is just and equall say they that man should approve and tolerate that which God himselfe approves and tolerates herein we (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in Rom 13.3 acknowledge Gods supreame right and yet we deeme our selves acquitted of mans guilt unlesse we conclude the sins of Baasha chargeable upon all those that submitted to his power but of this we suppose the Ministers of Lancashire and Cheshire will say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God forbid 3 Those who undertake to prove this that God dis-ownes the aimes and interests of those now in power amongst us must evidence their ends to be uncapable of divine approvall and Sirs unlesse you dwell in their bosomes your arguments wil passe but for presumptions mens actings seldome making up more then a fallible conjecture of their ends Wee have learned for our parts 1 Cor. 4.5 to judge nothing before the time 4 Yet further we conceive and that upon deliberation too it wil be very hard for these undertakers to find a case paralelling that capacity which our Commons in Parliament stood in before their acting in this solitary Supremacy for they had then a co-equall title at least to and a share in that Soveraignty which now they are vested withall exclusivè and if this paralell be found upon search into some American constitutions or other it will be as hard a matter then to cleare the divine disapprovall of persons thus acting in the like case yea or to lay downe any sound rules whence by Analogy our present Rulers actings can be concluded absolutely injustifiable as the means of their attaining this power The difficulties therefore and intricacies being very many wherewith such as take in hand to prove the sinfulnesse of the meanes by which or the corruption of those interests for which our Government has been changed must necessarily labour and be intangled and the duty of obedience to our present Governours continuing in full force according to our first assertions notwithstanding these difficulties should be broken thorough since we say it is so hard a taske and in our judgements infeasible to prove the meanes or end of our present establishment evill and this done still as difficult to prove that obedience and subjection are not good and necessary we conclude that our wisdome as well as our strength will be to sit still and humbly to acquiesse in the * Mr. Burroughs rare jewell of Christian contentment pag. 35. Prov. 22.5 providential wil of our God Quae pertingit a fine usque ad finem fortiter disponsit omnia suaviter Thornes and snares will be in the way of those froward ones who study the intangling of other mens consciences and the dis-obliging their own at this season ‖ See Pro. 28. in Rom. 14.19 Such a work wil be as dangerous as lyable to the exceptions of men and as capable of his dis-owning who commands us to study what makes for quietnesse and the edifying of one another as any change of Government amongst us or our neighbours hath been

obligation to protect us is all the provision God hath made for the securing our properties liberties and lives this we impugn and there may be other securitie for our wellfare though the Oath of Allegiance be none of it Secondly they retort upon us miserable is that Prince or that Power whose title to Allegiance depends upon his actuall protection c. true if they intend to be Nero's Caligula's Heliogabula's men of wild-fire spirits who * L. Catelina in Senatu M. Cicerone incendium ab ipso incitatum dicente sentio inquit quidem illud si aqua non potuero ruina extinguam Val. Max. è Sallust 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Syn. See Prov. 16.12 20.28.31.3 Prov. 29.14 Cataline-like care not to sacrifice Nations at the Altar of their ambition and tyranny if their aymes be to make their Houses great and to that end doe trample upon the poore if they leave off to doe Judgement and are as roaring Lions and ranging Beares pitty but they should be miserable but if their deportment be as becomes Gods Vice-gerent their Titles are well enough secur'd the Throne shall be established by righteousnesse shalt thou reigne because thou closest thy selfe in Cedar saith the Lord to Jehoiakim did not thy Father eat and drinke and doe judgement and justice and then it was well with him what better security can be given to Princes then this what destroyes their Title and right in Scripture account but unrighteousnesse tyranny and wickednesse Ezek. 21.25.27 and thou profaine wicked Prince of Israel whose day is come when iniquity shall have an end thus saith the Lord God remove the Diadem c. I will overturne overturne overturne it and it shall be no more untill he come WHOSE RIGHT it is and to him I will give it Kings say we have got a knack to dis-oblige themselves c. but say they 'T is impossible they should be dis-obliged in conscience and yet remaine Kings and for fact how can they doe it Ans 1. Did not the late King professe that he could not in Conscience yeeld to many things which the Parliament declared it his duty to grant as the abolition of Episcopacy Litturgy the punishing of Delinquents c. but perhaps they 'l say being thus dis-oblig'd of his duty in Conscience he remained nothing if so as they seeme plainly to suggest we shall kisse their lips for giving so right an answer 2 What de facto Kings have lately done in this point Europe's sad experience shall speake where Lawes have been too short Beds for Monarchs to stretch themselves upon and scarcely in any corner is there a ragge of freedome left the Commons unlesse empty formalities such as will you have this man reigne over you passe for freedome indeed and as little security unlesse written Lawes will secure them which is all the defence and shelter we see these Ministers allow them but the Parliament was more favourable and good when time was Declarat March 4. 1647. and more Orthodox in our Judgements We shall offer to the consideration of all English-men say they that however they may please themselves with their Magna Charta their Courts of Justice high Court of Parliament c. all this signifiesnothing c. Ridiculous are those Lawes which may be violated by force and by force shall not be defended c. 3 Their complaint of Subjects dis-obliging themselves is a wide retortion this they say many now doe for their pleasure and advantage but such a Buskin will fit any legge we beleeve that if ever these men dis-obey'd the late Kings personall commands or dis-own'd his Warrants in Cheshire c. other men have said as much of them as now they say of others so that for their advantage they could dis-oblige themselves of Allegiance too if to tell them so was to prove it we discharge our selves of no homage due to any set over us by God any that afford us or in likeli-hood may afford us quiet and legall protection but because we refuse to espouse the Scots Kings quarrell for Dominion and Lordship here which was to put our Sickle into another mans Harvest therefore they tell us we dis-oblige our selves c. But content your selves Sirs for untill you can perswade us that the Powers which ARE NOT are ordained of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4 The next thing they finde themselves agriev'd withall and thinke good to take notice of is our apprehension touching the Coalition or the meane of a People and their Rulers closing together we conceive in this transaction a mutuall stipulation betwixt Magistrate and people they say 't is not alwayes mutuall but since they grant that it is so with us in England in a sense which we take to be our sence we shall proceed to examine their exceptions against that rule which we assumed withall as a safe and true one viz. That if he who promiseth mutually will not performe what he promiseth our obligation is not binding this say they is no true rule 1 First Because what the Prince and people promise or sweare to each other they were bound to by the Law of God and Nature before such Oathes This they dictate to us telling us it is evident but we see no such thing sure we are 't is none of those principles that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 carrying their evidence in themselves neither doe they offer us any proofe of it Besides this in our case say they this is evident by the constitution Law and continuall practise of the Kingdome which to us is ignotum per ignotius and did we know it it would not sway much with us unlesse we could come acquainted with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereof yet we shal be content to suppose it wel therefore be it so Subjects cannot be conceived bound without all condition 'T is presumed surely that they shall receive protection if they stand bound for the Magistrates debt is every whit as due as the peoples and if so our Oath cannot render that absolute which before was but conditionall unlesse in the letter of it it excepts against all condition let us heare their other Argument 2 Secondly say they Because the Covenants between Prince and people are absolute and irrespective they are not as two parts of one and the same convention or Covenant they make not one Indenture interchangeably sealed on both sides c. How prove they this why forsooth first because they sweare at severall times a proper Argument to prove an Independant Covenant may not many men promise the same thing under a condition and yet tye themselves to it by Oath some at one time some at another and he to whom the promise is made engage himselfe at a distinct time too to all those who shall so sweare people cannot be so formall punctual in indenting with their Princes as they may be one with another yet this