Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
justice_n authority_n king_n law_n 3,431 5 4.6378 4 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
A41868 Great and weighty considerations relating to the D[uke of York] or successor of the crown humbly offer'd to the Kings Most Excellent Majesty and both Houses of Parliament / by a true patriot. True patriot.; Hunt, Thomas, 1627?-1688. 1679 (1679) Wing G1660; ESTC R5871 12,981 12

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Littleton p. 8. And hence in their new Machiavilian Logick will inforce that to dis-inherit his Royal Highness is not against the Oath of Allegiance which speaketh only of Heirs not of Heirs Apparent A ridiculous shift and a most silly evasion first because we profess to take the Oath not in any by-sense of the Law but in the plain and common sense of the words as all men do usually understand them Wherefore although the Law by Heirs had understood such as succeed to their deceased Ancestors yet fince this is not the plain and common sense of the word and men do not generally understand it so it can never excuse us from a perjurious violation of our Oath 2dly Because by Cokes leave this his observation is most fallacious and impertinent For it is a manifest contradiction for one to be Heir Apparent and not be Heir as it is to be a Learned man and to be no man it being an undoubted maxime Prius est esse quam esse ●alc And the fallacy consists herein that the word Heir in its full and proper notion signifies either an Heir Apparent who is such during the life of his Ancestor of a● Heir by right actually inheriting which always presupposeth his Ancestors death or at least his resignation But Coke most improperly restrains it to the latter contrary to the common and usual manner of speaking not only of most men in general but of God himself in his holy Scriptures where Heirs Apparent are absolutely and most commonly called Heirs as appeareth Gen. 15.3 and 2 Sam. 14.7 Mat. 21.38 Mark 12.7 Luk 20.14 and Gal. 4.1 Since therefore it appeareth by so many passages of holy Scripture that the word Heir in its plain and common sense signifieth an Heir Apparent and that we profess before God and the World to take the Oath of Allegiance in the plain and common sense of the words upon what grounds can we understand here an Heir actually inheriting more than an Heir Apparent Nay since the words of the Oath do signify as well an Heir Apparent as an Heir actually inheriting what a Sophistical Equivocation it is to understand it of the one exclusively of the ot●er Surely it is no better than if a Jesuit had Sworn before a Magistrate to be true and Loyal to the Government of this Kingdom he in the interim meaning the Government not of the King or Parliament but of his own Jesuitical Assemblies Let us not therefore flatter our selves or foolishly think that after so solemn an Oath either or both Houses of Par●iament can authorize us before God to deprive our Prince of his undoubted right And truely I admire if they who so much insist upon the liberties of free-born English Subjects will ever acknowledge the Parliament or any person whatsoever to have this arbitrary and despotical power whereby the Axe is laid to the very root of their greatest priviledges For if it be lawful for a prevailing faction in Parliament to deprive their Prince of his undoubted Birthright how can mean Subjects have any security either of property or liberty And besides since it is an undoubted maxime in Moral Affairs Illud tantum possumus quod de jure possumus and as St. Austine saith Quod non potest juste non potest justus Upon what grounds should the House of Commons nay the whole Parliament Claim this absolute power I cannot find For its evident that both Houses can challenge no other authority but what they derive from their Soveraign and the diffusive body of the Subjects whom they represent And no less manifest it is that no King of England hitherto did nor in my Opinion could give his Parliament any power to depose or dis-inherit himself or his Heir Apparent And if your Majesty intends to grant them any such thing at present which I hope your Princely wisdom will never do I remember your Royal Father gave the long Parliament greater power than he was aware of which they soon after used or rather abused against himself his Crown and Dignity And therefore I say Foelix quem faciunt paterna pericula cautum As for the diffusive Body of the Subjects 't is clear they neither would nor could grant the Parliament this extravagant Jurisdiction First they would not do it for who can be so credulous as to believe that any man so desirous of his liberty as English Subjects ever have been would grant the Parliament this Despotical power uncontroulably to dispose of his own much less of his Princes Life or Estate Secondly How could the Subjects grant the Parliament any power to deprive their Prince of his Birth-right against all the Laws of God and Nature since of God alone and not of the Subjects the Prince deriveth his whole Right and Authority For there is no power but of God Rom. 13.1 By wh●m Kings do Reign and Princes decree justice Prov. 8.15 How then can the People deprive their Prince of that which they have no power to give As for my own particular I must confess I could never understand that the Imperial Crown of England was disposable by Act of Parliament I always thought the Liberties of English Subjects to be grounded on surer Principles and that no power in this Kingdom could lawfully deprive us of our Priviledges or enthrall us to any servitude whereas it 's evident that if an Act of Parliament can thus transfer the Crown upon whom they please we can have no security and may according to such Maxims first or last be brought under the Tyranny of the French King or any other Forreign Prince if ever the corruption or mercinariness of a Parliament should induce them to comply with a King that should have a mind to sell the Succession of the Crown to a Foreigner upon the security of an Act of Parliament which according to the Tenets of these Politicians can give a just Title But if we consult God's Divine Oracles the Holy Scriptures which undoubtedly should be the chief Rule of all Humane actions we shall never find any Example or President to warrant these unparallel'd proceedings against his Royal Highness but may find several passages clearly against it There we find how King Ahab though absolute Monarch of Israel and consequently needed no Parliament but had himself alone as much power and authority over the Ten Tribes of Israel as your Majesty and Parliament together can claim de jure over the Natives of England and though this Monarch passionately coveted his Subject Naboth's Vineyard and was of himself little inclined to Justice yet he knew that by the Laws of God and Nature it was altogether unlawful for him to deprive Naboth of his Vineyard but if he could not deprive him of a small Vineyard surely he could not rob him of his Birth-right and whole Estate And if such an absolute Monarch could not do this to a mean Subject by what colour of Justice can the House of Commons nay the whole Parliament do