Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
justice_n according_a law_n power_n 2,633 5 4.9144 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A33926 The legality of the court held by His Majesties ecclesiastical commissioners defended their proceedings no argument against the taking off penal laws & tests. Care, Henry, 1646-1688. 1688 (1688) Wing C527; ESTC R23058 12,362 42

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Let this be Printed WHITE-HALL Febr. 25 th 1687. Sunderland P. THE Legality of the Court HELD BY His Majesties Ecclesiastical Commissioners DEFENDED Their Proceedings No ARGUMENT Against the Taking Off Penal Laws Tests LONDON Printed and are to be Sold by Richard Janeway in Queens-Head-Alley in Pater-Noster-Row MDCLXXXVIII THE Legality of the Court Held by His Majesties Ecclesiastical Commissioners DEFENDED THE Manifest Design of our Church-men's Out-cries against His MAJESTIES Ecclesiastical Commission being to insinuate into the Mobile That the KING notwithstanding the solemn Promises he has made to the Church of England intends nothing less than Her Ruin I cannot forbear adding some Considerations to what the Vindicator of the Proceedings of His MAJESTY's Ecclesiastick Commissioners hath said on this Subject And thus much I the rather do because I find that the Last thing they aim at is the setting the Nation against the Taking off Penal Laws and Tests But that I may the more Successfully go through this Province it will be necessary that I examine what has been opposed to the Legality of the Court. His MAJESTY has Promised to Protect the Church of England as by Law established and hitherto has done Nothing that interseres with this most Gracious Promise for it must be acknowledged that a Correcting the Disobedient Members of a Church is not a Destroying but rather an using proper methods to preserve and secure it The Church of England is a Body-Politick compact and compounded of many and almost infinite several and yet well-agreeing Members of which the KING is Head instituted and furnished with plenary and entire Power Prerogative and Jurisdiction to render Justice and Right to every part of this Body of what Estate Degree and Calling soever he be The Exercise of this Power and Prerogative according to the Ecclesiastick Laws of this Realm is the Great Engine used for the Defence and Security of this Church The Distribution of Justice whether by encouraging those that do well or punishing the Offenders is the true way to support a Body-Politick Thus much I presume all men of Sence will yield from whence it is easily inferr'd That on my Clearing the Legality of the Commission for nothing has been that I do know objected against the Defence of its Proceedings it must be moreover granted that His Majesty has done the Church of England no harm My present Work then is to consider What has been urged against the Legality of this Court The Author of a Letter to the Vindicator will have the Question to be Whether or no by the Laws of this Nation as they now stand the KING 's Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction may be delegated to Commissioners Or Whe-Ecclesiastical Commissioners derived their Authority from His Majesty by vertue of the First Elizabeth only and not upon the score of any Prerogative in the Crown preceding to that Act whereby our Kings might appoint Commissioners in such Cases ad libitum is the single Question upon which the Validity or Invalidity of the present Commission will turn To this the Author answers That it is not an Expression that might drop from my Lord Coke's Pen that will determine so weighty a point as this especially it being a question that depends upon some knowledge of Antiquity which my Lord Coke was very little acquainted with Besides he adds That my Lord Coke never tells us that our King 's by vertue of their ancient Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction could appoint any Commissioners After this the Author goes on to let us know what the ancient Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical was boldly affirming that no Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction was anciently delegated to Commissioners For saith he Commissioners are not such Arbitrary things as some mistaken Men do fondly imagine And how plausibly soever it be said That what Power a Man has in himself he may delegate unto another Yet this difference must be admitted betwixt Persons Commissionated by the KING in Matters of Government and Persons authorized by private men to act for them and in their stead viz. That private men may by Law do those things in Person which they impower others to do for them But the KING Commissionates Persons to do what Himself cannot by Law do in Person This is the Substance of what our Author opposes to what the Vindicator had said of the Legality of this Court. And in my Reply no more is needful than to shew 1. That in the Sence of the Church's great Archbishop the KING may do by Law those things in Person which He impowers Commissioners to do for Him. 2. That before the 1 Eliz. the Kings of England by the Common Law might grant out Commissions 3. That notwithstanding any thing contained in the 16 Car. 1. or 13 Car. 2. be KING may do so still 4. That His Majesty may exercise this Prerogative in Matters Ecclesiastical in a more ample manner than yet He has done and therefore seeing he doth not it 's manifest That His Majesty designs no Hurt to the Church of England To the First I will only insist on what is affirm'd by Archbishop Bancroft the Malleus Puritanorum the great Champion of our English Church who was President of the Convocation called in the First year of K. James 1. and stifly insisted on the imposing the three Articles and on a Depriving all that disobeyed This Great man the Church of England's Darling expresses himself most fully in these Words Lib. 12. Mich. 5 Jac. Prohibitions de l'Roy as Sir Edward Coke reports Upon Sunday the 10th of November the KING upon Complaint made to him by Bancroft Archbishop of Canterbury concerning Prohibitions was informed That when question was made of what Matters the Ecclesiastical Judges have cognizance either upon the Exposition of the Statutes concerning Tythes or any other thing Ecclesiastical or upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. concerning the High Commission or in any other case in which there is not express Authority in Law 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 please to determine from the Determination of the Judges and may determine them Himself And the Archbishop said It was clear in Divinity that such Authority belongs to the KING by the Word of GOD. Nothing can be more expresly opposite to what the Author of the Letter affirms He saith that The KING cannot by Law do that in Person which He impowers others to do But the Archbishop is positive That the KING can do it in Person yea that thus much is ratified by the Holy Scriptures and therefore is out of the power of humane Laws to alter If then there be any Truth in this Church-man's Divinity there is no force in what the Author offers for Law. But Secondly The thing I chiefly insist on is this That before the First of Elizabeth the Kings of England might grant out Commissions In Caudries Case Coke Rep. Lib. 5.