Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	aaron_n	bring_v	moses_n	22	3	6.1317	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56211	The soveraigne povver of parliaments and kingdomes divided into foure parts· Together with an appendix: wherein the superiority of our owne, and most other foraine parliaments, states, kingdomes, magistrates, (collectively considered,) over and above their lawfull emperours, kings, princes, is abundantly evidenced, confirmed by pregnant reasons, resolutions, precedents, histories, authorities of all sorts; the contrary objections re-felled: the treachery and disloyalty of papists to their soveraignes, with their present plots to extirpate the Protestant religion demonstrated; and all materiall objections, calumnies, of the King, his counsell, royallists, malignants, delinquents, papists, against the present Parliaments proceedings, (pretended to be exceeding derogatory to the Kings supremacy, and subjects liberty) satisfactorily answered, refuted, dissipated in all particulars. By William Prynne, utter-barrester, of Lincolnes Inne. It is on this second day of August, 1643. ordered ... that this booke ... be printed by Michael Sparke ...; Soveraigne power of parliaments and kingdomes	Prynne, William, 1600-1669.	1643 (1643)	Wing P4087A; ESTC R203193	824,021	610

blinde King who could not lead them to the warres in person And Ethodius the 2 d king of Scotland being dull of wit given to avarice and nothing meete to governe the Realme thereupon the Nobles tooke upon them the governmēt appointing Rulers in every Province so continued them all his reigne leaving him nothing but the bare title of a King not depriving him thereof out of the respect they gave to the family of Fergusius but yet taking away all his regall power And not to multiply cases or examples of this nature Andrew Favine in his Theatre of Honour out of the Chronicle of Laureshe●m and A●monius in his 4 th Booke of the History of France relates a notable resolution given by the Parliament Estates of France in this very point In the yeare 803. Lewes the De●onnaire king of France holding his Parliament in May there came thither from strange Provinces two Brethren kings of Vuilses who with frank free good will submitted themselves to the judgement of the said ●arliament to which of them the kingdome should belong The elder of these two brethren was named Miligastus and the yonger Celea●raeus Now albeit the custome of the said kingdome adjudged the Crowne to the eldest according to the right of 〈◊〉 allowed and practised by the Law of Nature and of later memory in the person of the last dead King Liubus father to the two contendants yet notwithstanding in regard that the Subjects by universall consent of the kingdome had rejected the elder brother FOR HIS COWARDISE AND EVILL GOVERNMENT cum secundam ritum ejus gentis commissum sibi Regnum parum digne administraret and had given the Crown to the younger brother FOR HIS VALOVR DISCREETE CARRIAGE after full hearing of both parties BY SENTENCE of PARLIAMENT the Kingdome was adjudged to the younger Brother stat●●t ut junior frater delatam sibi à Populo suo pot●statem haberet c and thereupon the eldest did him homage with oath of Alleigance in the said Parliament and submitted to this sentence And upon this very ground in some of our ancient British and Saxons Kings Reignes when the right heire to the Crowne was an infant unable to defend his kingdome and people against invading enemies the Crowne hath commonly descended to the Vncle or next heire of full age who was able to protect them and repulse their enemies till the right heire accomplished his compleat age as I have elsewhere manifested If then a Kingdome by generall consent may elect a new King to defend and preserve it in case of invasion and eminent danger of ruine by forraigne enemies when their present King either cannot or will not doe his duty in protecting them from their enemies and exposeth them for a prey to their devastations as these examples and authorities conclude they may though I will not positively determine so Then certainely by equall semblable and greater reason subjects may lawfully take up necessary defensive Armes against their Kings when they shall not onely desert but actually invade and wage warre against them destroy and wast them in an open Hostile manner and handle them as cruelly as the worst of enemies such a wilfull unnaturall Hostile invasion being farre worse than any cowardly or bare desertion of thē when they are invaded by a forraign enemy And if Kings in case of ●ot●ishnesse or Lunacy may be lawfully deposed from their kingdomes by common consent of their Realmes when they are altogether unfit or unable to governe as Bishop Bilson asserts and I have manifested elsewhere then much more may they be lawfully resisted by force without guilt of Treason or Rebellion when they wilfully and maliciously contrary to their oath and duty cast off their Royall governments the protection of their subjects and wage open warre against them to enslave or ruine them If a Father shall violently and unjustly assault his sonne a husband his wife a master his servant a Major or other inferior Officer a Citizen to murther maime or ruine them They may in such a case by the Law of Nature God man resist repulse them in their owne defence without any crime at all as dayly practise experimentally manifests yea they may sweare the peace against them and have a Writ de securitate Pacis in such cases Therefore by the selfefame reason they may resist the King and his Army in like cases there being no more humane nor divine Law against resistance in the one case than in the other Finally it is the resolution of Iohn Bodin and others who deny the lawfulnesse of Subjects taking up Armes against their Soveraigne Prince or offering violence to his person though he become a Tyrant That if a Soveraigne Prince or King by lawfull election or succession turn● a Tyrant he may lawfully at his Subjects request be invaded resisted cond●m●ed or slaine by a forraigne Prince For as of all Noble acts none is more honourable or glorious then by way of fact to defend the honour goods and l●ves of such as are unjustly oppressed by the power of the more mighty especially the gate of Iustice being shut against them thus did Moses seeing his brother the Israelite beaten and wronged by the Egyptian and no meanes to have redresse of his wrongs So it is a most faire and magnificall thing for a Prince to take up Armes to releive a whole Nation and people unjustly oppressed by the cruelty of a Tyrant as did the great Hercu●es who travelling over a great part of the world with wonderfull power and valour destroyed many most horrible monsters that is to say Tyrants and so delivered people for which he was numbred among the gods his posterity for many worlds of yeares after holding most great Kingdomes And other imitators of his vertue as Dio Timoilion Aratus Harmodius Aristogiton with other such honourable Princes bearing Titles of chastisers and correctors of Tyrants And for that onely cause Tamerlain Emperour of the Tartars denounced warre unto Bajazet King of the Turkes who then besieged Constantinople saying That he was comming to chastise his Tyrannie and to deliver the afflicted people and vanquishing him in battle routed his Army and taking the Tyrant prisoner he kept him in chains in an Iron Cage till he dyed Neither in this case is it materiall that such a vertuous Prince being a stranger proceede against a Tyrant by open forc● or fiercenesse or else by way of justice True it is that a valient and worthy Prince having the Tyrant in his power shall gaine more honour by bringing him unto his tryall to chastise him as a murtherer a manqueller and a robber rather than to use the Law of Armes against him Wherefore let us resolve on this that it is lawfull for any stranger Prince to kill a Tyrant that is to say a man of all men infamed and notorious for the oppression murder and slaughter of his subjects and people And in this sort

Allies and other neighbour States or Princes may with good Conscience repulse with Armes from Subjects wrongfully oppressed invaded tyrannically by their Soveraignes or their wicked Instruments at or without the Subjects intreaty when they are unable to relieve themselves no doubt the Subjects themselves if able may with better reason and as good Conscience resist and repell because every man is nearer and more oblieged to defend and preserve himselfe and those of his owne Nation Religion blood then strangers are and may with lesse publick danger inconvenience and more speede effect it then Forraigners but Allies and Forraigne Neighbour States and Princes as Gratian out of the 5. Councell of Carthage Augustine Ambrose Hier●m Anastatius Calistus and other Albericus Gentilis Iohn Bodin Hug● Grotius and Generally all Canonists Casuists Schoolemen accord may in many cases with good conscience by force of Arms repulse from Subjects wrongfully oppressed invaded and tyrannically abused the injuries offered them by their Soveraignes and that either at and in some cases without the Subjects intreaty Which they prove by Moses his slaying the Aegyptian that oppressed the Hebrew Exod. 2. 11. to 15. by Ioshua his ayding of the Gibeonites against the five Kings that made war against them Iosh. 10. by the example of Iehoshaphat 1 Kin. 22 2 Kings 3. Of the chiefe Captaines securing Paul with a gard of Souldiers against the Iews who had vowed his death Acts 23. by Abrahams rescuing Lot Gen. 14. by sundry ancient and late Examples in story Therfore Subjects themselvs no doubt if able may with good reason and conscience lawfully resist and repell their Princes invading Forces though accompanied assisted with his personall presence Fifthly It is yeelded by all Divines Lawyers Canonists Schoolemen as Gratian Ban●es S●to Lessius Vasquius Covaruvi●s Aquinas Sylvester Bartolus Baldus Navarre Albericus Gentilis Grotius and others that private men by the Law of God and nature may in defence of their lives chastities principall members and estates lawfully resist all those who forcibly assault them to deprive them thereof yea and slay them to unlesse they be publicke persons of eminencie by whose slaughter the Commonweale should sustaine much prejudice whose lives in such cases must not be willingly hazzarded though their violence be resisted which is cleerely prooved by Iudges 11. 8. 15. to 18. 1 Sa● 17 41. to 53. Deut. 22. 26. 27. since therefore all these are apparently indangered by an invasive warre and Army more then by any private assaults and no ayde no assistance or protection against the losse of life chastitie estate and other violences injuries which accompany wars can be expected from the Lawes or Prince himself the fountaine of this injustice or legall punishments inflicted on the malefactors whose armed power being above the reach of common justice and injuries countenanced abetted authorised by the Soveraigne who should avenge and punish them every subject in particular and the whole state in Parliament assembled in generall may and ought in point of conscience joyntly and severally to defend themselves their neighbours brethren but especially their native Countrey Kingdome whose generall safety is to be preferred before the lives of any particular persons how great or considerable soever which may be casually hazarded by their owne wilfulnesse though not purposely endangered or cut off in the defensive incounter by those who make resistance And if according to Cajetan and other Schoolemen Innocents which onely casually hinder ones ●light from a mortall enemie may be lawfully with good conscience slaine by the party pursued in case where he cannot else possibly escape the losse of his owne life because every mans ownelife is dearer to him then anothers which he here takes away onely to preserve his ownelife without any malicious murtherous intent though others doubt of this case or if innocent persons set perforce in the front of unjust assailants as by the Cavalleir●s at Brainford and elsewhere to prevent defence and wrong others with more securitie and lesse resistance may casually be slain though not intentionally by the defensive party as I thinke they may for prevention of greater danger and the publicke safety then certainely those of publicke place and Note who wilfully and unnaturally set themselves to ruine their Country Liberty Religion Innocent brethren who onely act the defensive part and voluntarily intrude themselves into danger may questionlesse with safe conscience be resisted repulsed in which if they casually chance to lose their lives without any malice or ill intention in the defe●dants it being onely through their owne default such a casuall accident when it happens or the remote possibility of it in the combate before it begins cannot make the resistance either unjust or unlawfull in point of conscience for then such a possibility of danger to a publike person should make all resistance unlawfull deprive the Republicke wholly of this onely remedy against tyrannicall violence and expose the whole common-weale to ruine whose weale and safety is to be preferred before the life or safety of any one member of it whatsoever Having thus at large evinced the lawfulnesse of Subjects necessary forcible resistance defensive wars against the unjust offensive Forces of their Soveraignes I shall in the next place answere the principall arguments made against it some whereof for ought I finde are yet unanswered These Objections are of foure sorts out of the Old Testament the New from reason from the example of the primitive Christians backed with the words of some Fathers I shall propound and answere them in order The first out of the Old Testament is that of Numb 16. Korah Dathan and Abiram for their insurrection against that very divine Authority which God himselfe had delegated to Moses and Aaron without any injury or injustice at all once offered to them or any assault upon them Ergo marke the Non-sence of this argumentation no Subjects may lawfully take up meere necessary defensive Armes in any case to resist the bloody Tyrannie Oppression and outrages of wicked Princes or their Cavalleires when they make warre upon them to destroy or enslave them An Argument much like this in substance No man ought to rise up against an honest Officer or Captaine in the due execution of his Office when he offers him no injury at all Therefore he ought not in conscience to resist him when he turnes a theefe or murtherer and felloniously assaults him to rob him of his purse or cut his throate Or private men must not causelesly mutinie against a lawfull Magistrate for doing justice and performing his duty Ergo the whole Kingdome in Parliament may not in Conscience resist the Kings Captaines and Cavalleeres when they most unnaturally and impiously assault them to take away their Lives Liberties Priviledges Estates Religion oppose and resist justice and bring the whole Kingdome to utter desolation The

very recitall of this argument is an ample satisfactory refutation of it with this addition These seditious Levites Rebelled against Moses and Aaron onely because God himselfe had restrained them from medling with the Priests Office which they would contemptuously usurpe and therefore were most severely punished by God himself against whose expresse Ordinance they Rebelled Ergo the Parliament and Kingdome may in no case whatsoever though the King be bent to subvert Gods Ordinances Religion Lawes Liberties make the least resistance against the king or his invading forces under paine of Rebellion High Treason and eternall condemnation This is Doctor Fernes and some others Bedlam Logicke Divinity The next is this Thou shalt not revile the Gods nor curse the Ruler of thy people Ex. 22. 28. Eccl. 10. 20. Curse not the King no not in thy thought and curse not the rich in thy bed-Chamber which is well explained by Prov. 17. 26. It is not good to strike Princes for equitie Ergo it is unlawfull for the Subjects to defend themselves against the Kings Popish depopulating Cavaleers I answer the first text pertaines properly to Judges and other sorts of Rulers not to Kings not then in being among the Israelites the second to rich men as well as Kings They may as well argue then from these texts that no Iudges nor under-rulers nor rich men whatsoever though never so unjust or wicked may or ought in conscience to be resisted in their unjust assaults Riots Robberies no though they be bent to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties as that the King and his Souldiers joyntly or severally considered may not be resisted yea these acute disputants may argue further by this new kinde of Logicke Christians are expresly prohibited to curse or revile any man whatsoever under paine of damnation Rom. 12. 14. Mat. 5● 44. Levit. 19. 14. Numb 23. 7. 8. 2 Sam. 16. 9. Levit. 20. 9. c. 24. P 1. 14. 23. Levit. 20. 9 Prov. 20. 20. 1 Cor. 6. 10. 1 Cor. 4. 12. 1 Pet. 2. 23. Iude 9. Ergo we ought to resist no man whatsoever no not a theefe that would rob us cut-throate Cavaleers that would murther us lechers that would ravish us under paine of damnation What pious profitable Doctrine thinke you is this All cursings and railings are simply unlawfull in themselves all resistance is not so especially that necessary we now discourse of against unlawfull violence to ruine Church and State To argue therefore all resistance is simply unlawfull because cursing and reviling of a different nature are so is ill Logicke and worse Divinity If the objectors will limit their resi●tance to make the Argument sensible and propose it thus All cursing and r●viling of Kings and Rulers for executing justice impartially for so is the chiefe intendment of the place objected delinquents being apt to clamour against those who justly censure them is unlawfull Ergo the forcible resisting of them in the execution of justice and their lawfull authority is unlawfull the sequell I shall grant but the Argument will be wholy impertinent which I leave to the Objectors to refine The third Argument is this That which peculiarly belongs to God no man without his speciall authority ought to meddle with But taking up Armes peculiarly belongeth to be Lord. Deut. 32. 35. Where the Lord saith vengeance is mine especially the sword which of all temporall vengeance is the greatest The Objector puts no Ergo or conclusion to it because it concludes nothing at all to purpose but onely this E●go The King and Cavalleeres must lay downe their Armes and swords because God never gave them any speciall commission to take them up Or Ergo no man but God must weare a sword at least of revenge and whether the kings and Cavalleers Offensive or the Parliaments meere Defensive sword be the sword of vengeance and malice let the world determine to the Objectors shame The fourth is from Eccles. 8. 2. 3. 4. I councell thee to keepe the Kings Commandment and that in regard of the Oath of God Be not hasty to goe out of his sight stand not in an evill thing for he doth whatsoever pleaseth him where the word of a king is there is power and who may say unto him what dost thou This Text administers the Opposites a double Argument The first is this All the Kings Commands are to be kept of all his Subjects by vertue of the Oathes of supremacy alleigance and the late protestation including them both Ergo by vertue of these Oathes we must not resist his Cavalleeres but yeeld our thoates to their swords our purses and estates to their rapines our chastities to their Lecheries our Liberties to their Tyrannies our Lawes to their lusts our Religion to their Popish Superstition and Blasphemies without any opposition because the king hath oft commanded us not to resist them But seeing the Oath and Law of God and those oathes of ours obleige us onely to obey the Kings just legall commands and no other not the Commands and lusts of evill Councellors and Souldiers this first Argument must be better pointed ere it will wound our cause The second this The king may lawfully do whatsoever pleaseth him Ergo neither are He or his Forces to be resisted To which I answer that this verse relates onely unto God the next antecedent who onely doth and may doe what he pleaseth and that both in heaven and earth Psal. 135. 6. Psal. 115. 3 Esay 46. 10. not to Kings who neither may nor can doe what they please in either being bound both by the Laws of God man and their Coronation Oathes perchance the oath of God here meant rather then that of supremacie or alleigance to doe onely what is lawfull and just not what themselves shall please But admit it meant of Kings not God First the text saith not that a king may lawfully doe what he pleaseth but he doth whatsoever pleaseth him Solom●n himselfe committed idolatry built Temples for Idolatrous worship served his idolatrous wives Gods married with many idolatrous wives greivously oppressed his people c. for which God threatned to rent the kingdome from himself as he did the ten Tribes from his son for those sinnes of his David committed adultery and wilfully numbred the people and what King Ieroboam Manasseh Ahab other wicked Kings have done out of the pleasure and freedome of their lawlesse wills to the infinite dishonour of God the ruine of themselves their posterities Kingdomes is sufficiently apparent in Scripture was all therefore just lawfull unblameable because they did herein whatsoever they pleased not what was pleasing to God If not as all must grant then your foundation failes that Kings may lawfully doe whatsoever they will and Solomons words must be taken all together not by fragments and these latter words coupled with the next preceeding Stand not in an evill matter and then Pauls words will well interpret his Rom.