Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	according_a	law_n	person_n	1,451	5	4.8874	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25519	An Answer to a late pamphlet intituled, The judgement and doctrine of the clergy of the Church of England concerning one special branch of the King's prerogative, viz, in dispensing with the penal-laws shewing that this is not affected by the Most Reverend Fathers in God, the Lords Arch-Bishops, Bancroft, Laud and Usher ... the Lord Bishop Sanderson ... the Reverend Doctors, Dr. Hevlin, Dr. Barrow, Dr. Sherlock ... Dr. Hicks, Dr. Nalson, Dr. Puller, so far as appears from their words cited in this pamphlet : in a letter to a friend.		1687 (1687)	Wing A3309; ESTC R15256	30,429	41

Now I am not concern'd to enquire what Dr. Hicks believes about the Dispensing Power but what he has said and our Author has not produced one word out of his Book about it and therefore I suppose he could not for his own words had been a better Authority in this case than Sir Robert Pointz I am sure where he particularly states and enumerates the Rights of Soveraignty he takes no notice of it for as he reckons them up they are these Jovian or an Answer to Julian the Apostate chap. 10. p. 201. Ed. 1. 1. To be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accountable to none except God 2. To have the sole Power and disposal of the Sword 3. To be free from all Coercive and vindicative Power 4. Not to be withstood or resisted by force upon any pretence whatsoever Lastly To have the Legislative Power that makes any form of words a Law The Soveraign Power may indeed be limited as to the exercise of this Power which may be confined to Bills and Writings prepared by others but still it is the Soveraign Authority who gives Life and Soul to the dead Letter of them Here is nothing at all about this Dispensing Power when there was a fair occasion for it Possibly this was an Omission which at that time he did not think of that not being the matter of Dispute or it may be he was not so well instructed and did not think this essential to the notion of all Soveraign Power as seems probable from his two sorts of Imperial Power either of which make an Imperial Soveraign such as is limited by the Laws of God and nature only or such as is limited by the Laws of God and nature and Civil Laws and Pactions too The Power in both sorts of Soveraigns is Imperial full perfect absolute and entire but the exercise of it is differently bounded and regulated one by the Laws of God and Nature and the other by human positive Laws and the latter limitation doth no more destroy the fulness and perfection and Supremacy of the Power than the former because the Soveraign who is under Political limitations as to the exercise of his Power hath his Power nevertheless as absolutely fully and entirely in himself as he that is only under the limitation of Divine and natural Laws De laudibus legum Angliae C. 9. Rex Angliae principatu nedum Regali sed Politico suo populo dominatur Regnum sic institui ut Rex non libere valeat populum tyrannide gubernare quod solum fit dum potestas regia lege politica cohibetur Thus the learned Chancellor Fortescue grants the King of England to have Regal or Imperial Power though it be under the restraint and regulation of the Power political as to the exercise thereof and as a Fountain that hath Channels and Pipes made for it within which its waters are bounded in their passage and through which they are to flow is nevertheless as perfect a Fountain and hath its waters as fully and entirely within it self as any other Fountain whose waters flow from it at liberty without any such regulation so a King whose Imperial Power is limited by human Constitutions in the exercise of it is nevertheless as compleat a Soveraign and hath the Soveraign Power as fully and entirely within himself as he who is at liberty to exercise his Authority as he will To be arbitrary is no more of the Essence of an Imperial Soveraign than to be free in the course of its waters is of the Essence of a Fountain but as the Fountain of an Aqueduct for example is as perfect in its kind and generally more beneficial and useful to mankind than a free flowing spring so limited Soveraigns are as perfect and essential Soveraigns as the purely arbitrary and despotick and generally more beneficial and salutary to the world A great deal more the Reader may find to this purpose in the same place which possibly may be the reason why he did not mention this absolute Dispensing Power among the Essential Rights of Soveraignty because he might imagine that this might not be essential to all Soveraigns not to those the exercise of whose Soveraign Power is regulated by Civil and Political Laws who yet are as perfect Soveraigns as the most arbitrary and despotick Princes But I do not love to guess at other mens thoughts nor shall I undertake to justifie or condemn this Notion of his but I think the Reader by this time sees what little reason there was to appeal to the Dean of Worcester to justifie the dispensing Power His next Authority is Arch-bishop Bancroft who it seems asserted That the Judges are but the Kings Delegates and that the King may take what causes he shall please to determine from the determination of the Judges and determine them himself which the Archbishop said was clear in Divinity that such Authority belongs to the King by the Word of God in Scripture Now I wonder this Writer would produce this and that for these two Reasons 1. Because at that very time in the Presence of King James my Lord Chief Justice Coke contradicted the Arch-bishop and told the King he could not do it and gave him his Reasons why he could not as the Ch. Justice himself reports it in that place to which this Writer refers 12 Co. Fol. 64. 5. Jac. Now methinks here he loses more than he gets for if he have got a great Church-man he has lost a very great Lawyer whose Judgment is more considerable in such matters for as the Arch-Bishop could tell him what hath been done in Scripture-times under the Jewish Common-wealth that Moses and David and Solomon and other Kings of Israel administred Justice in their own Persons So the Ch. Justice could tell him what the Constitutions of this Kingdom and the regular form of Law will admit which is more to our purpose 2. I wonder a little more how he can prove the dispensing Power from this The King may judg what causes he pleases himself Ergo He can dispense with all Laws when he pleases Does the Power of hearing and trying causes and expounding and interpreting Laws include in it a power of dispensing with Laws Then it seems every Judg is by his Office a Dispenser with Laws If the King have Power of determining causes in his own person must he judg with or without Law If he judg according to the Laws how does this prove his Power of Dispensing with Laws Surely this is a Power which can result only from a Supreme absolute and unlimited Soveraignty not from a mere power of hearing and judging causes according to the true meaning and interpretation of Laws so little does this Writer understand what he writes about and it is great pity there is no more care taken that the Kings Prerogative do not suffer by such unskilful Scriblers His next man is a very great one indeed not only an Archbishop but a Martyr for

inclinable to follow such Guides as these and therefore I should have thought it more advisable to have taught people more to rely on the Opinions of Judges than of Divines in matters of Prerogative and Law because I fear that the honest Prerogative Divines will be greatly out-numbred by the Popish and Phanatick Common-wealths-men and whether this will prove for the service of the King should have been considered 2. My second Reason why I dislike this way is That I fear instead of doing service it will do great disservice to the King by weakning the Authority of those many excellent discourses which have been written about Non-resistance and which did great service not only to former Kings but even to our present Soveraign in the late evil and critical times It will not easily be forgot how many hard Censures those honest Divines underwent who durst both from the Pulpit and the Press oppose that factious humour which was then so rampant and presaged those wicked Conspiracies which were afterwards by the Divine Providence so happily discovered and disappointed The Doctrine of Non-resistance would very hardly go down and the great objection against it was That it made the Prince absolute and set him above all Laws which were Laws no longer than he pleased to have them so and thus our Lives and Properties and Liberties and Religion were at the Will of the Prince and if this were really the natural consequence of the Doctrine of Non-resistance I suspect it would to this day put a great many English Subjects out of conceit with it and yet this is in great measure the design of this Letter to apply those Sayings or Arguments which were urged for the Doctrine of Non-resistance to prove a Dispensing Power inherent and inseparable from the Crown Now far be it from me to dispute this Point Whether there be such an inherent Right in the Crown or no especially as far as the Judges have determined that there is but this I say That it is not a necessary Consequence of the Doctrine of Non-resistance that because we must not resist our Prince whatever he does therefore he may de jure dispense with what Laws he pleases and I think it is for the Interest of the Crown that these two should be kept distinct that the Prerogatives of the Crown should be asserted and maintained upon their own bottom and that the Doctrine of Non-resistance which must defend all other Prerogatives and is a better and cheaper security than Forts and Castles may not be entangled with other Disputes which will weaken its Authority though it be Divine when it is clogged as some men will think with such uneasie and fatal consequences This I confess gives me a just indignation against those half-witted Scriblers who to serve as they think a present turn have endeavoured to lessen the Reputation and to weaken the Arguments of those Divines who have appeared so zealous for the Doctrine of Non-resistance and Passive Obedience by affixing a great many consequences to them which are neither consequences nor theirs and by wresting their words to other purposes than they intended and for this reason I judg it a very good piece of Service to the Crown to undertake the Vindication of the men and of their Doctrines For Divines to determine points of Law especially such as require deep skill and insight into the nature of the Constitution as I observed before is out of their Sphere but obedience to Soveraign Princes both Active and Passive is not merely a point of Law but a Gospel command and this they not only may but ought to explain and press upon the Consciences of their hearers This the Church of England her self has done in the Homily of Obedience and this the Ministers of the Church have taken all occasions to do and with that success that there are not more Loyal Subjects in the World than the true Sons of the Church of England but farther than this they have not gone or if a few dablers in Politicks have let them answer for themselves The Scripture teaches Obedience but the Prerogatives of Princes and the Liberties of Subjects are the matter of human Laws and Constitutions which properly belong to another Gown And thus I come to consider what Testimonies this Writer has produced to prove That it is the Doctrine and Judgment of the Reverend Clergy of the Church of England that the Power of Dispensing with any Laws is an inherent and inseparable Right of the Crown where I will not meddle with the main point Whether the King have any such right for I will not dispute that but whether these Divines whose Authority is alledged in the cause ever taught any such Doctrine He begins with the Reverend Dr. Hicks Dean of Worcester and endeavours to render one of the best Books that ever was wrote for Passive Obedience wholly useless or odious to those men who are not fond of the dispensing Power But what does the Dean teach That the English Realm is a perfect Soveraignty or Empire and that the King of England by the Imperial Laws of it is a Compleat Imperial Independent Soveraign that it is a contradiction to call this an Imperial Crown unless he have all those Rights which are involved in the very Notion of his Imperial Soveraignty Well! to make short work with it does the Dean say That this Dispensing Power is one of those Rights which are involved in the notion of Imperial Soveraignty No he says no such thing but this Writer says so for him that this Power of dispensing with Penal Laws must be or nothing one of those Prerogatives which he proves from Sir Robert Pointz his Vindication of Monarchy and what then suppose it be does the Dean say so for that is the only point in question What his Judgment is No but he says That the Imperial Crown has all the Rights which are involved in the Notion of Imperial Soveraignty and our Author can prove that the dispensing Power is such a Right and therefore the Dean must grant that this dispensing Power is a Right inherent in the Crown Very well A Popish Priest will allow that an Imperial Crown has all the Rights that are involved in the Notion of Imperial Soveraignty now say I a Supremacy in all Causes over all Persons as well Ecclesiastical as Civil is an inherent Authority of the Imperial Crown therefore Popish Priests renounce the Supremacy of the Bishop of R●me and own the Supremacy of the Kings of England If he think this is not a good proof let him consider this matter over again which will be worth the while if it be only to teach him to Reason a little When there is any Dispute about the rights of Soveraignty it is a ridiculous inference to say That he who owns all the Rights of Soveraignty owns whatever any man says is a Right of Soveraignty for still he owns no more than what he himself believes to be so