Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	baron_n	lord_n	sir_n	10,808	5	7.2470	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A70272	A free discourse wherein the doctrines which make for tyranny are display'd the title of our rightful and lawful King William vindicated, and the unreasonableness and mischievous tendency of the odious distinction of a king de facto, and de jure, discover'd / by a Person of Honour.	Person of honour.; Defoe, Daniel, 1661?-1731.; Howard, Robert, Sir, 1626-1698.	1697 (1697)	Wing H2995A; ESTC R10075	41,911	132

because it lessens the Honour of the King it draws King WILLIAM's Picture too like that of King James there 's Difference enough let but an ordinary Painter have the Shadowing it between a Tyrant that will not be limited by Law and a Rightful King who pretends to no Power but what the Law gives him Between the sternness of the one awing the Poor Scholars of Maudlin and the Martial heat of the other forcing proud Boufflers out of Namur It ought not to be forgot that this DE FACTO injury to King WILLIAM's Honour is an instance of unparalell'd ingratitude for he ventur'd Life and Fortunes for the Deliverance of our enthrall'd Nation and that upon the humble requests of the Chief of those very Men who now requite him with this Wicked Shameful and Ingrateful Distinction One would think it was not politickly done of them as it is plain was not done honestly for who would serve their interest another time if this be their way of Testifying their Sense of the Obligation They are a Generation difficult and hard to be pleas'd and possibly it were easier to teach them their Duty and make them Subscribe to RIGHTFUL AND LAWFUL KING than to gratifie all their Pretensions for whether they know it or no the honest English Men who were enough to carry it for the Election of King WILLIAM to supply the vacant Throne are enough to defend his Right and establish his Throne maugre all their restless endeavours to supplant him II. As their malevolent distinction lessens the honour of the King so it weakens the Government Unto a King DE FACTO only there is no esteem no Thanks no Allegiance due We may admire a difficult and great Atchievment but it must be a Vertuous Honest and Beneficent which wins our Esteem and Love we must be the better for it if it deserves our thanks we must have paid our thanks in giving the Hero the Right of a King or he can have no just claim to our Allegiance Some Men teach and pretend the Authority of the Church of England for it but therein they wrong their holy Mother that Allegiance is due to successful Usurpers and that Providence together with success grants them that Authority which the People ought to obey for Conscience sake When an unhappy interest with-holds us from professing our assent to an evident Truth we are many times tempted to profess and defend an evident and shameful untruth So it is in the case before us The De facto Men refusing to own the rightful and lawful Title of King WILLIAM are forc'd to say that Allegiance is due to Usurpers for well they know should they pursue their Principle as far as it would carry them they could have no pretence at all to his protection besides open and declar'd enmity against the Government under King WILLIAM's Administration was too much in all conscience to be endur'd Hence they found it requisite to labour to perswade the King that they were oblig'd to obey him tho' he had no right to govern them 'T was a strange Paradox this so very strange that had they not been endued with the uncommon wit and bouldness of guilding and varnishing it at the expence of the honour of God Almighty they had made bold with the honour of the King to very little purpose But it is my business to wash off the guilt and varnish and show the odd Paradox naked that no Consciencious weak mind be cheated thereby hereafter They would perswade the King that they were oblig'd to obey him tho' he had no right to govern them This is pretended first to have been the Opinion of some of the best Lawyers of former days and Instance is offer'd in Sir Edw. Coke the Judges in Baggett's Case the Lord Chief Justice Hales and the Lord Chief Baron Bridgman But the Lord Chief Justice Hales for what he says quotes Sir Ed. Coke only against Sir Edw. Coke's Authority many things are obvious besides that it stands singly on Baggett's Case the Parliament Roll recited in that Case is pointed directly against what Sir Edw. Coke is suppos'd to have asserted Lord Chief Baron Bridgman has said nothing in favour but much against the Paradox For a fair and full illustration of these particulars I refer to the Review of Dr. Sherlock 's Case of Allegiance Printed in the Year 1691. As our Law is not chargeable with so foolish and unrighteous an injunction as that which requires obedience to Kings in possession Kings falsely so call'd who have no right to govern so much less is it to be defended from the words of Holy Scripture But as it sometimes happens in other Cases so in this where Men have the least reason for it there they put the greatest trust There is not a Text in the Bible which commands Obedience to Tyrants or Usurpers The Scope of the places and the evident reason of things all along evinces that the Kings Magistrates and other Superiours whom we are commanded to obey have a lawful Authority to govern Yet by artifice and dextrous shifting the Sails our De facto Men hope to weather the point Their method is to refer all events to the over-ruling disposals of Providence so as if Providence left nothing to the free will of Man Indeed if it were the positive Will of God that Ambitious Men should grasp Sceptres and Arbitrarily Lord it over cheated or conquer'd People then we ought to obey Tyrants and Usurpers for Conscience-sake but then the Argument would prove too much for such Ambitious Men being the Ministers of God's Providence and executing only what he would have them they ought not to be called Tyrants and Usurpers they have according to this reasoning from Providence a lawful Tittle But the Sophistry in this way of arguing from Providence is plainly discover'd and refuted by distinguishing between the Will and the Permission of God Almighty When those things that ought to be done and which are just and good are done then the Will of God is complied with when contrary things are done then the Will of God is resisted and oppos'd for as Dr. Sherlock has excellently observ'd We are to learn our duty from the law of God not from his Providence the Providence of God will never justify any action which his Law forbids Let me add nor can we without the highest impiety ascribe an unlawful action to his over-ruling influence he does not so much as give leave to the attempts of Ambitious Men he is not pleas'd with Usurpation and Tyranny and therefore it is impossible for him to require that Obedience be paid to Usurpers and Tyrants God for many wise Reasons permits the Affairs of the World to go on as they are mov'd by the force of Natural Causes thence it comes to pass that Craft and Cruelty often prevail over Right and Innocence But God has not made the misfortunes of honest Men their Duty neither Reason nor Revelation forecloses them from