Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	call_v	law_n	sin_n	1,595	5	5.0127	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61544	A discourse concerning the illegality of the late ecclesiastical commission in answer to the vindication and defence of it : wherein the true notion of the legal supremacy is cleared, and an account is given of the nature, original, and mischief of the dispensing power.	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1689 (1689)	Wing S5581; ESTC R24628	67,006	76

he is not Lord over the Community but Governour 2. That for him to Dispense in a Law made for the Community without a just Cause is not only malum quia prohibitum sed ex se ex natura rei semper malum Therefore Suarez was far from thinking a Prince might Dispense with any thing that was not malum in se for he makes it to be so for him to dispense with a malum quia prohibitum if it be prohibited by a Law made for a Publick Good and there be no just Cause for it 3. That although a Prince sins in Dispensing with such a Law yet his Dispensation holds as to the Force of the Law which he supposes to depend on the Will of the Prince and therefore his Will being altered the Obligation ceaseth as to the Persons Dispensed with 4. That although such a Dispensation holds as to the Law yet he thinks a Prince bound in Conscience to Revoke such a Dispensation because it is unlawful for him to persist in such a Will it being repugnant to the Common Good and the Obligation of his Duty 5. That if such a Dispensation be to the Injury of a third Person then it is void in it self as being repugnant to Justice Vasquez saith They are all agreed That no Prince hath a Power to Dispense with his Laws according to his Pleasure or because they are his Laws But he saith There is a Dispute Whether an unlawful Dispensation be valid or not And he thinks not and that a Man's Action after the Dispensation is as faulty as if there had been none His Reason is because a Prince is bound by his own Laws so that he cannot Dispense with himself as to the Obligation of them for if he could at Pleasure Dispense with himself he could never be bound for how can a Man be bound to keep a Law in which he can Dispense with himself when he pleases And if he cannot Dispense with himself much less with any under him Having thus endeavoured to clear the Nature and Original of the Dispensing Power I now come 2. To the Reason assigned by Sir E. Coke from the Year Books why the King may Dispense with Laws because they be mala prohibita and not mala per se. My Lord Vaughan said Right concerning it That this Rule hath more confounded Men's Judgments on this Subject than rectified them Which I shall make appear by shewing I. That it alters the Frame of our Government II. That it takes away all Security by Law. III. That it contradicts the Sense of our Nation in former Ages IV. That the Rule is contrary to the Precedents in Law. I. That it alters the Frame of our Government For it goes upon a very false Ground viz. That the King may Dispense with any thing which is not Evil in its own Nature or antecedently to any Human Laws which is to suppose the whole Legislative Power to be lodged in the Person of the King For all who understand these Matters do agree That a Power to Dispense with Laws is the same with a Power to make them Dispensare hoc est lege solvere is solus potest qui ferendae abrogandaeque leg is potestatem habet saith H. Grotius Suarez saith He hath the Power of Dispensing qui legem tulit quia ab ejus voluntate potentia pendet Vasquez That the Dispensing Power lies in him qui habet Potestatem condendi abrogandi legem Pufendorf That none can Dispense with a Law but such as have the Power of making it But we need no Authorities in this Matter For to Dispense in the Sense it is here taken is to take away the Obligation of a Law and whoever takes it away must have the Power of laying it on And there is no Difference between the Dispensation with a Law and the Abrogation of it but that a Dispensation is an Abrogation of it to particular Persons while others are under the Force of it and an Abrogation is a General Dispensation that being no more than a Relaxation of the whole Law to those Persons who were bound by it before But if a part of the Law be taken away as to the whole Community then it is called a Derogation of it But if the Law be Relaxed only for a limited Time and under certain Conditions then it is not an Abrogation but an Indulgence or Suspension of the Law. To Dispense with a Law is more than to give an Equitable Sense or a Favourable Interpretation of a Law for he that Inteprets a Law supposes his Interpretation to agree with the Sense and Design of the Law he that Dispenses owns that which he dispenses with to be against the Intention of the Law but that he hath Power to take away the Force of it so far as he thinks fit He that saith Thou shalt not kill doth not reach to Legal Executioners of Justice interprets the Law according to Reason and Equity But when God said to Abraham Go and Sacrifice thy Son he must be supposed by virtue of his Supreme Authority to Dispense with the Law in his Case so as to make that Lawful upon his Command which would not have been so without it Some will not allow this to be called a Dispensation but an alteration of the Matter of the Law but when that Alteration comes from the Authority of the Law Makers it is the same so that to Interpret a Law is an Act of Discretion and Judgment but to Dispense with it of Authority and Jurisdiction And none can therefore Dispense in the Law of God but he that made it all that the Wisest and greatest Men can justly pretend to is no more than to give the true Sense of it and it is intolerable Prsumption for any Creature to pretend to more An Equitable Sense as to Human Law is not always that which seems to be most favourable to those who go against the Letter of it but that which most enforces the End and Design of the Law although it be not comprehended in the Words of it If a Law mentions a Crime of a lesser nature in regard of Circumstances and in regard of those Circumstances promises some Favour as Benefit of the Clergy it can be no Equitable Sense to extend it to such Acts which have worse Circumstances because the Ground of the Favour was the extenuation of the Fact by the Circumstances so that the chief Rule of Equity in the Interpretation of a Law is to attend to the Intention and Design of it more than to the bare Words The Intention and Design of the Law is not to be measured by Particular and Accidental Cases wherein some Inconveniencies are to be born but by the Publick and General Good which more than makes amends for them which is the Reason of that Maxim Better a Mischief than an Inconvenience which is false unless taken in such an Equitable Sense There are

Person and this Royal Power cannot be restrained by any Act of Parliament neither in Thesi nor in Hypothesi but that the King by his Royal Power may dispense with it for upon the Commandment of the King and Obedience of the Subject does his Government consist as it is provided by the Statute of 23 H. 6. c. 8. That all Patents made or to be made of any Office of a Sheriff c. for Term of years or for Life in Fee-simple or in Tail are void and of none effect any Clause or Parol of Non-obstante put or to be put into such Patents to be made notwithstanding And further Whosoever shall take upon him or them to accept or occupy such Office of Sheriff by vertue of such Grants or Patents shall stand perpetually disabled to be or bear the Office of Sheriff within any County of England by the same Authority And notwithstanding that by this Act 1. The Patent is made void 2. The King is restrained to grant a Non-obstante 3. The Grantee disabled to take the Office yet the King by his Royal Sovereign Power of commanding may command by his Patent for such Causes as he in his Wisdom doth think meet and profitable for himself and the Commonwealth of which he himself is sole Judge to serve him and the Weal Publick as Sheriff for such a County for years or for Life c. And so was it resolved by all the Justices of England in the Exchequer Chamber ' 2 H. 7. Here the Point is resolved into an inseparable Prerogative in the King which no Act of Parliament can restrain although made with his own Consent Is there no Act of Parliament then which this great Lawyer will allow to restrain the King's Prerogative so as he cannot disperse with it What saith he to the Case of Buying Offices at Court Cannot the King by vertue of his Prerogative order his Houshold as he pleases to dispose of Offices about him as he thinks fit No. The same Lawyer saith That no Non obstante could dispense with the Act against buying of Offices And yet one would think that the King had as great a Prerogative in the Court as over the Kingdom But how comes he to say That the King can dispense notwithstanding the Disability when elsewhere he saith The King cannot dispense in the Case of a Disability by Law For the Reason he gives why the King cannot present a Man to a Living who is convict of Simony is because the Law hath disabled him Very well And yet in this Case although the Law hath disabled him the King may dispense Where are we now The King can dispense with a Disability and he cannot dispense with it This is indeed a very dark learning of Dispensations as C. Justice Vaughan well called it for we cannot yet find the way through it Can the King dispense with a Disability in Law or not If not the Case of Sheriffs is gone If he can then why not in the case of Symony Why not as to sitting in Parliament without taking the Oaths No here is a Disability in Law. What then Cannot the K. dispense with a Disability in one Case as well as the other Bu the same Person saith That in that Case because the Words amount to a Disability the King cannot dispense and here where the Disability is expressed he may But we are lately told there are two sorts of Disabilities one is actually incurred as that upon the Members who sit without taking the Oaths and the other is a Disability annexed to the Breach of a Law as a penalty and that penalty not to be incurred before a Legal Conviction and in this Case the King's Dispensation coming before the Conviction doth prevent it by making that lawful which would not have been so without it But when a Disability is actually-incurred it cannot be taken off but by Act of Parliament I Answer That if the Law which makes the Disability doth allow of a Dispensation antecedent to the Conviction then I grant that the Dispensation before Conviction prevents the Disability As in Digby's Case if the Dispensation had come before Institution the Disability as to holding the former Living had been prevented because the Law doth expresly allow of a Dispensation in the Case But here is no such thing The Act of Parliament supposes no Dispensation but makes an utter Disability as to the holding the Office in Sir Edward Hales his Case but a dispensing Power is set up against the Act of Parliament and such a Dispensation neither before nor after Conviction can prevent a Disability If it could I can by no means see why it might not as well hold as to Members of Parliament at least as to the Oath of Supremacy if they take their Dispensation before Sitting in the House For the Disability doth not take place till they enter the Parliament 5 Eliz. c. 1. And he that entreth the Parliament without taking the said Oath shall be deemed no Knight Citizen Burgess or Baron nor shall have any Voice but shall be as if he had been never Returned or Elected The Intention of the Law for the Test was a disability to hold the Office but it allows time for Persons to qualifie themselves as appears by the Act for the Test. Is not this plain overthrowing the design of the Law for Persons instead of doing what the Law requires to take out a Dispensation for not doing it and so prevent the Disability And what doth a Law signifie when the very design of it is overthrown And what is the Power of making Laws by common Consent in Parliament if without such Consent the whole force of the Law may be taken away by a dispensing Power So that this doth not meerly make Laws to signifie nothing but according to Will and Pleasure but it makes our very Constitution insignificant which requires to every Law the Consent of the People in Parliament As for Instance By the first Constitution of the Roman Government the King had the custody of the Laws but no Laws were to be made but by the Consent of the Roman People in the Curiae thence called Leges Curiatae Would any one have thought this any Privilege if after these Laws were passed the King should claim an inseparable Prerogative of dispensing with them as he sees Cause For it is implied in such a Fundamental Contract as this that Laws when made should not lose their Force without their Consent who made them Else it is not Contractus bonae Fidei I will not dispute whether this were the Original Contract of our Nation or not but this I may say That when our Government came to a Settlement after long struglings this was one of the Fundamental Articles of it That no Laws should pass or Burdens should be laid upon the People but by their own Consent in arliament Bracton saith That a Law among us supposes the Authority of