The is a summary in Sutras of a ten page Treaties written in 1686 by Edward Stephens (Socrates Christianus) in London. He called for Protestants to rise up against Catholicism and as such against King James (I and VI). Two years later the 1688 Revolution took place.
Edward Stephens opposed the right of king James I and VI to the throne of England on grounds of Religion and Law.
Although the concept of separation of church and state existed, late medieval influences still played a role in a 17th century mind. Edward Stephens questioned if King James’ actions were contrary to the Constitution, Government Statutes, Coronation Oath and to Christianity.
He argued: King James caused trouble. He retained a large Army and Navy in time of peace. He arrange for administration of justice to be run by “unqualified papists”. He axed Protestant Jesuits from office replacing them with Catholics.
King James (I and IV) made those of like mind High Commissioners giving them status and authority. He credited them for their loyalty.
Edward Stephens further argued: such loyalty is abusive and unfitting of a king. It imposes compliance in the face of knavery, treachery, mischief and destruction. It imposes a submission that is incompatible with the laws of Kingly power and the established government. It serves not only to destroy the self but the state as well. It is born out of vice not virtue and vice cannot be the basis of law. Submission and compliance to such compliance is treachery.
Such loyalty is not service to king and country. No rational men can view this as Reasonable and Legal service to King and country.
Thus questions Edward Stephens in Important questions of state, Law, justice and prudence, Both civil and religious Upon the late revolutions and Present state of these nations London 1686.
Here Edward Stephens Shifts the focus of responsibility for abuse in the name of loyal away from the responsibility of the King and onto the individual engaged in such so called loyalty.
Why is this significant?
It is significant because this 17th century thinking is usually attributed to Nuremberg trials after World War II in cases of war crimes against humanity and later established in the Rome Statute at article 25(2) in 2002 of the International Criminal Court of Justice.
In this ten page Treaties named: Important Questions of State, Law, Justice and Prudence, Both Civil and Religious Upon the Late Revolutions and Present State of these Nations Written in 1686 by Edward Stephens (Socrates Christianus) he then calls for Protestants to rise up against Catholicism and as such Against King James (I and VI). Two years later, in 1688 the great Revolution took place and the Protestant Christianity escalated to power in England.
See presentation here:
Article 25 Individual criminal responsibility
- The Court shall have jurisdiction over natural persons pursuant to this Statute.2. A person who commits a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court shall be individually responsible and liable for punishment in accordance with this Statute.3. In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person:
(a) Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person, regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible;
(b) Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime which in fact occurs or is attempted;
(c) For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission;
(d) In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime by a group of persons acting with a common purpose. Such contribution shall be intentional and shall either:
(i) Be made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or criminal purpose of the group, where such activity or purpose involves the commission of a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; or
(ii) Be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the crime;
(e) In respect of the crime of genocide, directly and publicly incites others to commit genocide;
(f) Attempts to commit such a crime by taking action that commences its execution by means of a substantial step, but the crime does not occur because of circumstances independent of the person’s intentions. However, a person who abandons the effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevents the completion of the crime shall not be liable for punishment under this Statute for the attempt to commit that crime if that person completely and voluntarily gave up the criminal purpose.
For further data see ICL here: http://www.iclklamberg.com/Statute.htm