Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	according_a	good_a	law_n	2,744	5	4.6392	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A70553	The thoughts of a private person, about the justice of the gentlemens undertaking at York, Nov. 1688 wherein is shewed, that it is neither against scripture, nor moral honesty, to defend their just and legal rights, against the illegal invaders of them : occasioned then by some private debates, and now submitted to better judgments.	Leeds, Thomas Osborne, Duke of, 1631-1712.	1689 (1689)	Wing L923A; ESTC R15799	20,236	31

Practice of the Jews and the Primitive Christians and the Subjection of Servants but nothing to the purpose for their Case is not ours more than their frame of Government is ours their Servants were Slaves and their Kings and Emperours Wills were their Laws their People had no Magna Chartaes to show nor Fundamental Compacts and so could plead no injustice in any command the frame of the Government Warranted all those commands that had the Royal pleasure Their Political Power was more extensive than their Moral Power The People were wholly at the Mercy of the Prince All their Laws were Acts of Grace not fundamental Reserves and inherent Rights and therefore in Spirituals they had no Cause to resist and in Temporals they might not as was observed above If they had been under limitted Governments as we are we might have heard of Blows as well as Words St. Paul was never so virulent with his Tongue as when he was smitten contrary to Law. Obj. 3. But the Person of the King is Sacred and must not be touched Answ I say so too but it is his just Power that makes him so And therefore in dangerous times he is to be counselled and perswaded to secure himself by keeping within the Sanctuary of the Laws and holding them forth for the Publick Good by gaining the Affections of the People and being content with that measure of Power that is proper to the Government For if he do not Right may and ought to be defended and resistance for the Publick Good of Illegal Commission'd Forces is not resisting the King's Person but his Forces not his Power but his Force without Power If none would execute the King's contradictory Commands none would resist and if he will against all Justice Prudence and Perswasions joys with wicked Men and wilfully expose himself to the mercy of blind Bullets charge is to be given to all that none kill him wittingly or wilfully the hand that lifted him up may not pull him down God forbid that any should think of killing him de industriâ or despair of his repentance before God does nothing past can prejudice a Penitent before God and I hope not before Men thus the King's Person and Power will be safe in the midst of a Civil War not so safe as in peaceable times but as safe as can consist with the Subjects Right when their Religion and Laws Liberty and Property are Violently invaded And therefore if any thing befall his Person by their hands it is but a chance and accidental thing which may happen also in peaceable times This shows that Resisting the King 's illegal commission'd Forces in defence of their own Rights is not Resisting the Ordinance of God and consequently no Sin and then the Conscience is not tyed otherwise than the Laws of the Land and the particular Frame of the Government tyes it Obj. 4. But to resist the King or his Commissioners is against the Frame of the Government it being a Monarchy and against the Laws and Statutes of the Realm Answ If it be so it is a great Sin but as it is certain this is a Monarchy so it is certain that it is limited in the Foundation otherwise the King would have all the Legislative Power and the Parliament no Authority or Right but derived from him and then he must be Arbitrary and we Slaves and all our Laws must be Acts of Grace not Fundamental Rights Not from any inherent Power refereed at the Institution to our selves and never submitted to the Prince but from the Gracious condescention of an Absolute Monarch which is contrary to the Story of all times which shows that the People ever claimed Liberty and Property according to their Ancient Laws and Customs not as a Gift but as a Right inherent in themselves and never Transferred Aliened or Conveyed to any King but Declared Recognized and Confirmed to them by many I shall therefore suppose what I thick none can upon sufficient grounds deny that the King is bound by all the sacred Tyes of God and Man to Govern by the Laws and not otherwise neither by a Foreign Law nor by one of his own framing nor by any Word or Will contrary to Law seeing nothing can have the force of Law here but what has the joynt Consent of King and Parliament and that in a Parliamentary way and this shows us in Terms of Submission that are sworn to on both sides The King and the People by a joynt consent makes Laws and make them the common Rule betwixt them the King swears to observe the Laws and the People swear to obey the King and to leave the Execution of the Laws to the King to be managed for the publick good Therefore as long as he Governs by Law he and all his Ministers are safe enough from Resistance the Resister being lyable to be punished both by God and Man and the sole administration being left to the King Subjects all but himself to Criminal Process and even himself to Civil but his Person and Power are safe in both he may be severe in the Execution of the Laws many times but not unjust As if he will not suspend a Burthensom Law or Revive an Antiquated one when the Publick good requires it This may render him uncharitable or imprudent but he is safe yet For though he be bound to proceed according to Law yet he is not tyed to proceed always according to the best Methods when there are diverse But if he stop the Courts of Justice erect new ones or proceed contrary to Law he Acts without Authority and against his own Authority and puts on a kind of a Vizard that his Subjects can neither know him nor their Duty for it is the Laws that direct them to the Person of the King and their own Duty without which they could know neither And if the End be not the Publick Good it is downright Injustice as well as politically Powerless Necessity indeed may justifie a Political unlawful Act for the Publick Good. As in case of an Invasion to burn a Garrison rather than it should be a refuge for the Enemy or to open Sluces and to drown a part of the Country for though these things have not the form of Law they have the reason and that is Publick Good And therefore it is not Law but Necessity not the King's Command but Publick Good that warrants these Acts. And when Peace returns the Injured are to have satisfaction made by the Publick not as of Charity but as of Justice which shows that the Law looks upon it as a Trespass justified only by Necessity and the Publick Good. And the particular Persons here have reason to be quiet and make no resistance because they shall reap double benefit by it one in the Publick Good and another from the Publick Treasure But it does not follow that if the King in an angry mood should command his Guards to fire Newmarket because he had lost an

THE THOUGHTS OF A Private Person About the JUSTICE OF THE Gentlemens Undertaking AT YORK Nov. 1688. Wherein is shewed That it is neither against Scripture nor Moral honesty to defend their Just and Legal Rights against the Illegal Invaders of them Occasioned then by some Private Debates and now submitted to better Judgments Printed in the Year 1689. The present Undertaking of the Gentlemen at YORK Nov. 88. taken into Consideration wherein is shewed That it is neither against Scripture nor moral Honesty to defend their Just and Legal Rights against the Illegal and Unjust Invaders of them by way of Objection and Answer FIrst That it is not against Scripture is shewed Obj. 1 2 3. 2. That it is not inconsistent with the Frame of the Government in General Obj. 4. 3. Not against the Law but the Law-breakers Obj. 5. 4. Not Rebellion Obj. 6. 5. No Vsurpation of the Power of the Sword Obj. 7. 6. No unlawful Act in a moral Sense Obj. 8. 7. Not against true Allegiance Obj. 9. 8. Not against the Declaration in a Legal Sense Obj. 10. 9. Not against Political Power but Force without Political Power Obj. 11. 10. Not against any Royal Prerogative in general Obj. 12. 11. Not against the Supremacy Obj. 13. 12. Not Criminal Disobedience Obj. 14. 13. Not incommodious or unsafe for the Publick in respect of the present and approaching Evils in removes Obj. 15 16. 14. No disparagement to the Frame of the Government that cannot otherwise decide at obstinate difference between King and People Obj. 17. Lastly The Conclusion shewing That Non-resistance of illegal Force does in effect make all Monarchs Arbitrary and the People Slaves The Thoughts of a Private Person c. MEN have three Rules to walk by which we may call Laws that is Nature Reason and Religion and and answerable to these three a Christian hath three Principles that is Sensitive Rational and Spiritual which I take to be the distinction that St. Paul makes 1 Thes 5.23 I pray God your whole Spirit Soul and Body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ Nature considers all Men as single Persons and directs them to Self-interest and Self-preservation as the chief end Reason considers Men as sociable Creatures and directs them to unite the Government for the publick Good inclusive of their own Safety as the chief End. And the Spirit considers Men as Candidates for Heaven and directs them to live according to the Word of God that they may attain Eternal Happiness the chief End of Man. All these have the divine Warrant and are of force where the Lower is not superseded by the Higher A single Person is not to expose himself to ruin unless it be for the Publick good and the Publick are not to expose themselves to Beggary and Slavery unless it be for the Kingdom of Heaven Now though these Rules may be considered separate and apart yet they all ought to be in a Christian Government Laws for the publick Good do not destroy the Law of Nature but supersede it for a greater Good and the Laws of God do not destroy the Law of Reason but supersede it for a higher end and so makes it still more Reasonable to do so Nothing therefore can justifie a Private Injury but the Publick Good and nothing can hinder the Publick Good for being carried on but Sin. For these Laws are not destructive but supportive of one another and all supportive of Man. When a Man cannot defend himself by the Method and Measures of the Publick as in case of sudden Assaults he may by the Law of Nature break the Peace and smite his Adversary to save his own life because humane Laws can reward no Person 's obedience with so good a thing as life and therefore the publick good excepted his life is to be preferred before all forms of Law. But it is not so with the Laws of God for if I be urged to deny my Faith or dye I must dye rather than break God's Law because God will give me a better Life and an infinite Reward Necessity can suspend a positive Law of Man that is merely such but it cannot supersede what is established by God or Nature an Act therefore that is civilly Unlawful may notwithstanding be Lawful because it is not Lawless but under a more extensive Law. If it be according to the Laws of God or sound Reason the Conscience is safe and the Act commendable before God and good Men though it be against the form of Political Law For though it be against the Form it is not against the Reason of that Law and the Form not being extensive enough of Man's safety it must give place to necessity and absolve him of his duty when his duty would destroy him The Safety of Man shows us both the Necessity and End of humane Government for when private Persons found they could not be Safe they were willing to enter into Compacts and Associations and reposite their private Safety in the publick Interest And therefore if after this Association some of their Fellows will break the Covenants and go about to destroy the Rest it is lawful both by the Laws of God and Man for the injured to defend themselves and by the Laws and Compacts by them made and consented to on both sides for the publick Good. Otherwise it would be unlawful to resist Injustice and consequently a Thief or a Robber Objets 1. But you will say in all Governments there are Superiours and Inferiours and God has made Obedience a part of Religion and consequently conducive to a higher end than the Publick Good and therefore if the Governours break the Laws and introduce a Publick Evil for a Private Interest they must not be resisted upon pain of Damnation Answ This were a good Plea if it were true but God is not the Patron of Injustice and therefore he gives no Prince or Potentate more Authority over the People than the Tables of the Government express and of these there are diverse degrees Those that are Govern'd by the Will of their Prince whose Word is a Law if he command their Persons for Slaves or their Estates to serve his Ambition they must obey and God requires it of them because it is the Prince's Right Arbitrary Princes have a Political Power to treat a Subject cruelly and inhumanely their Immortality is an offence against God not in justice to the Subject who had given himself up to be used at their discretion But those that are to rule by Laws made for the Publick Good and such as render the Subjects Freemen not Slaves such as secures their Religion Liberty and Property if these Princes contrary to Law imprison their Persons or seize their Estates they do it unjustly without God's Warrant or any Political Authority and may be resisted or else we might not resist the Devil should he creep into the Court in a Jesuits habit and Haman-like get a Commission

but Force without Power may The Political Power of Arbitrary Princes is more extensive than their Moral Power And this tyes the Subject to Non-resistance when he is Immorally or Unchristianly used They that subject themselves to anothers Discretion devest themselves of all defence But they that reserve Property and Liberty to themselves may justly defend them when they are unjustly invaded Had the King an Arbitrary Power which he did abuse to vex the Protestants I for my part should think my self obliged to suffer and not resist as I believe did all the Primitive Christians but seeing he has no Political Power to use me as he lists and the most Absolute Monarch has no Moral Power to do an unjust Act to his Subject I should be a senseless Fool it without any Obligation either from God or Man I should stand Blows rather than withstand them The Truth is Non-resistance stretch'd thus far under this Government would make us like the Two Fools that went to the Field to fight with one Staff with which Vice Versa he that had it cudgell'd the other who stood all the while with his Hands in his Pocket Valiantly bearing all the Blows his Brother Fool thought good to lay on 2. Others conclude otherwise against this Doctrine and say The King having the Sacred Power Lodged in him may not be resisted though he Act without or against that Power for reverence of that Just Power of God that is in him This looks like a piece of Courtship to God and smells more of Superstition than Divinity God requires no Honor to the prejudice of Justice or the Advancement of Injustice but this too Devout kind of Reverence would inable a bad Prince to injure the Innocent and would leave Justice defenceless on Earth Just Power is a Sanctuary indeed but the Sanctuary is of no larger extent than the Power This is evident by the Tenour of all Commissions the Granter must have a competent Power of what he Grants and that Warrants the Executor to proceed to the and of the Grant but the having Power to one Purpose cannot protect a Man from Resistance if he proceed to another The Chimneyman that is Irresistable in his Office is Resistable if he gather the Corn in the Town-fields And the King that Receives his Commission from the King of Heaven to execute the Law and is therefore Irresistable in the Execution of it is yet Resistable if he shut up all the Courts of Justice and abuse his Subjects contrary to Law In this case he Acts not by the Power of God but his Own by an Arm of Flesh or the Strength of Wicked Men not by any Political Power or Moral Power but by the Savage Power of a Beast or the Malicious Power of Hell. And how any Honor should accrue to God by a Voluntary submitting to such a Power is beyond my comprehension they are most likely to Honor God that stand up most for his Power and will submit to no other I have brought in these Two Objections here because the Declaration is the most specious and obvious Plea for Non-resistance and is usually back'd with one of these Conceits that either want of Political Power is but abuse of Political Power or that a limitted Political Power is a Sanctuary for unlimitted Actions in whomsoever it rests Obj. 12. But to resist such Forces as are Commission'd by the King is against the Royal Prerogative of the Crown Answ The King has no Prerogatives except such as are wrapt up in honorary Formalities but what the Law gives him we must not therefore presume a Prerogative and then conclude it Law but first find the Law and by it prove the Prerogative and when we have found the Prerogative it must be measured by what the Publick Good will bear and not by what the Absoluteness of the Prerogative will admit For no Prerogative can be used that is against the Frame of the Government or the Publick Good. Interpretations of Law therefore ought rather to favour Liberty and Property than Prerogative because the benefiting of the Subject comes nearer to the End of the Government than the excessive Honouring the Prince Honorary Prerogatives are in their Degree necessary and not superfluous there must be something to maintain the Reverence of Magistrates but they ought to give way to Publick Interest and the rest are nothing but Powers placed in the King to do Good with and not Good or Ill as he pleases A Prerogative therefore cannot destroy a Law but it may supply its Defects pardoning a Condemn'd Innocent or a hopeful Penitent or dispensing with a Law to one that by particular Accident the Law in its Rigour would undo But no Prerogative can Impower the King to destroy the Peoples Liberty or Property That dispensing Power that like a State Opium casts all the Laws asleep and is an Engine of Publick Mischief is no Prerogative belonging to the Crown of England but a Vice that does not belong to it For it brings Guilt upon the King and Damage upon the Subject and is a real diminution of the Dignities of the Crown For it and such like serve only to Impower the King to do Mischief with securely that is they give an Immunity from Punishment but not from Guilt As suppose the King by such a claimed Prerogative should shut up all the Courts of Justice so that none should be had he might be free from Punishment but not from Guilt he is clear by Necessity only not by Right the Case Transcends the Frame of the Government none can Judge him that has neither Equals nor Superiours and so he escapes because he cannot be Punished not because he deserves it not Thus the pretended Prerogative bespatters him and so leaves him Obj. 13. But it is against the Supremacy for the Supreme ought to have the Supreme credit both in judging what is Law and what is for the Publick Good. Answ As the King is Supreme in the Executive part so the Parliament have a share in the Legislative which I take to be the very Apex of Supremacy and therefore they ought to have their share in interpreting Laws as well as the King or his Judges because none knows the meaning so well as the Makers if they be alive and if they be dead none knows the publick Necessities so well none so unlikely to deceive or be deceived being so numerous none likely to be so faithful and so unlikely to be corrupted having so great an interest in the publick Good none like to be so effectual in working a compliance in the Peoples hearts seeing it is in effect their own Determination But yet they cannot do it without the King for that would place his Parliament above himself The King indeed is Supreme in the Legislative part as well as in the Executive part but he has not the whole Supremacy in the Legislative part as he has in the Executive He is the Head of that Body in which it