Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	act_n	king_n	power_n	3,247	5	5.0875	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A46343	The judgment and doctrine of the Church of England concerning one special branch of the King's prerogative, viz. in dispencing with the penall laws / asserted by the most reverend father in God, the lords Arch-Bishops Bancroft, Laud and Usher, the right reverend fathers in God, the lords Bishops Sanderson and Cartwright, the reverend doctors, Sir Thomas Ridley L.L.D., Dr. Hevlin, Dr. Barrow, Dr. Sherlock master of the temple, Dr. Hicks, Dr. Nalson and Dr. Puller ; and by the anonymus, author of The harmony of divinity and law : together with the concurring resolutions of our reverend judges, as most consonant and agreeable thereunto ; in a letter from a gentleman of Oxford, to his friend at London.	Gentleman of Oxford.	1687 (1687)	Wing J1172; ESTC R1415	16,661	48

with a Non-obstante yet the Queen may grant a Patent with a Non-obstante to cross this Non-obstante I have done Sir now with our Reverend Prelates and Doctors of the Church of England as to this Particular and hope I have sufficiently proved to you that their Judgment and Doctrine doth clearly warrant this Great Prerogative of dispencing with Penal Laws to be in the King. Let us see in the next place what were the Reasons that induced the Reverend Judges in Westminster Hall who the Law sayes are the Expositors of Acts of Parliament and are likewise Custodes jurati ss Praerogativae Regiae so openly and solemnly after mature deliberation to declare their Resolutions in this Point for the King. The Reasons that perswaded them were These that follow viz. I. That the Kings of England are Soveraign Princes II. That the Laws of England are the King's Laws III. That therefore it is an Incident Inseparable Prerogative in the Kings of England as in all other Soveraign Princes to dispence with Penal Laws in particular cases and upon particular necessary Reasons IV. That of these Reasons and these Necessities the King himself is the sole Judge And then which is Consequent upon all V. That this is not a Trust invested in or granted to the King by the People but is the antient Remain of the Soveraign Power and Prerogative of the Kings of England which never yet was taken from them nor can be Now Sir if such hath been the Doctrine of our most Eminent Clergy of the Church of England and in it they have delivered to us nothing but the words of Truth in Righteousness that the King by his Imperial Soveraignty when he shall see the Necessity of the State to require it of which he is the only Judge may dispence with Penal Laws How can you or any man who is a sincere lover of the Church of England be dissatisfied with the Resolution of our Reverend Judges in this matter seeing the Reasons they went upon were only such as were exactly correspondent with the avowed Doctrines before recited and that by this Declaration of theirs the Law of the Kingdom of England concerning this soveraign Power in the Crown is no more than what was before publickly asserted to be the Divinity of the Kingdom Besides Lex vigilat pro Rege saith the Law and the Judges are sworn to maintain all the Kings Prerogatives which are part of the Law of England and comprehended within the same therefore it is said that Imperij Majestas est Tutelae Salus the Dignity of the Prince is the Peoples Security The Kings Prerogative and Priviledges are incident to his Crown and He need not prescribe in any Prerogative for it is as ancient as his Crown is and is not only the Law of the Exchequer but the Law of the Land as that which is his by the ancient Laws of the Land. Wherefore the Judges of the Courts of Westminster are to judge in matters of Prerogative by this Rule that whatsoever may be for the Benefit and Profit of the King shall be taken most largely for him whatever may be against him and for his disprofit shall be taken strictly and it is the Duty of every Judge of all Courts High and Low to take great care to preserve the Kings Right and for that purpose to take every thing at the best for him And Sir unto the Judges the People are bound lastly and finally to submit themselves for matter of Law according to the opinion of the Learned Author of the Royallists Defence But I remember likewise you seemed to startle at the thoughts of this Power and were afraid if at any time the King should think it necessary and convenient to exert it and to grant a general Liberty of Conscience that the Church of England would be extreamly shaken in her security What strange Jealousies and Suspitions some weak men may have I suppose it will not be here worth while to consider but certainly our Great Supporters of the Ark of God can never allow themselves in so feminine a passion They know they have an infinitely wise God and a most Gracious King to trust to this hath been their Doctrine and ought we not to practice it They say 1. They have the Care and Providence of God for their Security who is King of Kings Lord of Lords and the only Ruler of Princes and that the Hearts of Kings are in his Rule and Governance and He doth dispose and turn them as seemeth best to his godly Wisdom according to what Solomon said and perhaps upon his own experience That the Kings Heart is in the hand of the Lord as the Rivers of Water he turneth it whithersoever he will. SO THAT THEY HAVE ALL THE SECURITY THAT ANY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD EVER HAD HAVE OR OUGHT TO HAVE Besides 2. They have a most Gracious King to trust to For 1. They have his Royal Word that he will protect and maintain the Church of England in the free exercise of her Religion as by Law established and can she ever be trusted in safer Hands than his He hath done more than ever any of us durst ever venture to look for to give us Confidence in him enough to puzzle our Understandings as well as our Gratitude And how can he give us better security than he has done Shall we suspect him without cause or remain dissatisfied when he hath given us the best security that our Cause admits of To suspect our Prince where we cannot help our selves is of all fears the most unreasonable 2. Again We have the Conscience of the Prince for our security who hath all the moral Obligations and the fear of God to keep him from oppressing us so long as we keep our selves within the Conscience of the Duty which we owe unto him The Common Principles of Humanity Justice and Equity are engraven by the Finger of God upon the Minds of Kings as well as upon other Mens and they cannot do wrong upon any particular Person much less to great numbers of their Subjects without undergoing the same uneasie remorse that other men do when they injure one another This hath been found by sad experience in Pagan Princes And if Conscience be a restraining Principle in Heathen Princes if they cannot without such Soul torments pervert Justice and violate their Oathes and the Laws it must needs much more be a powerful Principle of Restraint to Christian Kings who are taught to know that they are Gods Ministers and that he will call them to a severe Account for oppressing his People over whom he set them And shall not the fear of God's Anger and Judgments keep the Soveraign from injuring of them 3. But further still As the Church of England hath the Prince's Conscience for her Security so she hath his honour too For Princes like other men are tender of their Honour and good Name and

THE JUDGMENT and DOCTRINE Of the Clergy of the Church of England CONCERNING One special Branch of the King's Prerogative Viz. In dispencing with the Penall Laws Asserted by The most Reverend Fathers in God The Lords Arch-Bishops Bancroft Laud and Vsher The Right Reverend Fathers in God The Lords Bishops Sanderson and Cartwright The Reverend Doctors Sir Thomas Ridley L. L. D. Dr Heylin Dr Barrow Dr Sherlock Master of the Temple Dr Hicks Dr Nalson and Dr Puller And by the ANONYMVS Author of the Harmony of Divinity and Law. Together with the Concurring Resolutions of our Reverend Judges as most Consonant and Agreeable thereunto In a Letter from a Gentleman of Oxford to his Friend at London Licenced the 2d of May 1687. Upon whomsoever God is understood to bestow the Soveraign Authority he must also be understood to bestow upon him all the Jura Majestatis or Essential Rights of Soveraignty according to that Maxim Qui dat esse dat omnia pertinentia ad esse He that gives the Essence gives also the Properties belonging to the Essence Jovian or an Answer to Julian the Apostate chap. 11. London Printed for J. H. and T. S. and are to be had at most Book-sellers in London and Westminster SIR IN one of the late Conferences you were pleased to have with me you seemed to be somewhat disatisfied upon the subject we were discoursing of which was whither the King had by Law such a Supream Power inherent in and inseparably annexed to his Crown as to Dispence with Penal Laws I remember I then told you we could not resolve our selves of this Great Point but by these two wayes 1. To see how far the Judgment of our Church-men appearing in their Doctrines which are for our Edification doth Warrant this Prerogative to be in the King. II. To see how far the Judges Resolutions in declaring their sence of the Law of the Land in this doubtful Question do agree with such their Judgments and Doctrines And as for the First Sir I doubt not but to make it clear past all peradventure that our Reverend Clergy of the Church of England have unanimously concurred in this Point of Doctrine that it doth inseparably belong to the Kingly office to dispence with Penal Laws when ever such a Supremacy of Power shall be thought necessary to be exerted for the safety of the King and the Good and Ease of his People in general And if I can prove this undeniably to You I hope then that this nice Scruple of yours which by the way I suppose you will allow me to call your tender Conscience will easily be removed and consequently then it may be presumed I shall have less difficulty to Satisfie You in the other Point that this sence of the Law of the Land in the point in Question is no other than what is exactly Correspondent with the Judgment and Doctrine of the Clergy of the Church of England To begin then The Reverend Dean of Worcester in his so deservedly applauded Answer to Julian the Apostate declares 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 and Independant Soveraign And he quotes Coke in Cawdrye's Case who saith that by the antient Laws of this Realm England is an absolute Empire and Monarchy and that the King is furnished with plenary and Entire Power Prerogative and Jurisdiction and is supream Governour over all persons within this Realm Now it would be a contradiction to call this an Imperial Crown to acknowledge the King for supream over all Persons and that he is furnished with Plenary and entire Power unless He have all Those Rights which are involved in the very Notion of his Imperial Soveraignty By the Rights of Soveraign saith He I understand Those Prerogatives and Preeminences of Power and Greatness which are involved in the Formal Conception of Soveraignty and are inseparably annexed to the Soveraign He hath no sharers or Co-partners in the Soveraignty None Co-ordinate with him in Government no Equal nor Superiour but only God to whom Alone He is subject All Power and Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deducted from Him as supream Head of These Churches and Realms There are some Essential Rights of the Crown which the Subjects cannot obtain from their Soveraign by any Grant or prescription without destroying the essential and individual Rights of Monarchy These Rights called the Flowers of the Crown are Regalia Suprema or Summa Jura Imperij regno tuendo servientia inherent to his Royal Function and politick Capacity and serve for the strength and support thereof such are the Rights of making War and Peace of having the last Appeal unto him or his Great Council and supream Court and of making Leagues and of Dispensing with Penal Laws granting pardons and such like Now if the King hath a perfection and fulness of Imperial Power in him as Dr Hicks hath clearly made out and This Power of dispensing with Penal Laws be as it must be or nothing one of those Prerogatives and Pre-eminencies of power and Greatness which are involved in the Formal Conception of Soveraignty Then certainly it is very plain that This is an Essential Right inseparably annexed to our Imperial Soveraign and to go about to deprive him of such an inherent Right it would tend to the disinherison of the King and his Crown This Phrase he saith of the disinherison of the King and the Crown in other Acts of Parliament is called The Destruction of the King's Soveraignty his Crown his Regality and things that tend thereunto things that are openly against the King's Crown in Derogation of this Regality And Sir to convince You that the King hath this Perfection and fulness of Power more especially in matters of Religion in his sacred Person you may please to be informed that that Great Metropolitan of All England Arch-bishop Bancroft when Question was made of what matters the Ecclesiastical judges have cognisance either upon the exposition of the Statutes concerning Tythes or any other thing Ecclesiastical or upon the Statute 1 Eliz. concerning the High Commission or in any other case in which there is not express Authority in Law declared That the King himself may decide it in his Royal Person and that the Judges are but the Delegates of the King and that the King may take what causes he shall please to determine from the Determination of the Judges and may determine them himself And the Archbishop said that this was clear in Divinity that such Authority belongs to the King by the word of God in the Scripture So that Eminent Prelate For as it is well observed by that Learned Knight and Doctor in the Civil Law Sir Thomas Ridley His Majesty by communicating his Authority to the Judges to expound his Laws doth not thereby abdicate the same from himself but that he may