Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	parliament_n	power_n	sovereign_a	2,128	5	9.5338	5	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

the Divines of the Church of England have formerly taught This he asserts and this I hope I may examine without any offence for it is no Condemnation of their Reasons tho' I shou'd say that they were never us'd by Divines Now a Reason has a necessary Relation to the Conclusion or to that which is to be prov'd by it for tho' a hundred men should say the same thing and draw a hundred several Conclusions from it you cannot say that their Reason is the same because their Conclusions are not the same for those only reason alike who from the same Premises draw the same Conclusion so that tho' every one of these Propositions which are here said to be the Judges Reasons had been asserted a hundred times over by the Divines of the Church of England yet if they did not draw the same Conclusion from them which the Reverend Judges have done they cannot be said to be the same Reasons and whether they have done that or not may be learn'd from what has been already said And yet in truth I cannot tell whether the Premises be the same or not for they are set down in such loose and general terms in this Paper as admit of very different Senses and in which Sense they are understood by the Reverend Judges is not said And therefore I shall shew you in what Sense these Propositions have been own'd by the Divines of the Church of England and then those who know the Judges sense of them will easily see where they agree and where they differ 1. That the Kings of England are Soveraign Princes This is universally own'd by the Divines of the Church of England but then they make some difference between Soveraign Princes not with respect to the fulness of Power for they have all the Rights of Soveraignty but with respect to the Exercise of this Soveraign Power for some Princes are under no Restraints and Limitations but only the Laws of God and Nature they can make what Laws they please repeal them when they please dispense with them as they please without the consent of any but themselves Other Soveraign Princes tho' they have all Soveraign Power and therefore are irresistable and unaccountable to any but God yet the Exercise of their Power is by their own consent directed and regulated by Laws that they can neither make nor abrogate Laws but by the Consent of their Nobles and Commons assembled in Parliament and therefore tho' they never can do any thing to forfeit their Power yet they may do that which is illegal and how far the legal Exercise of such a Soveraign Power extends must be known by the particular Laws and Constitutions of their several Kingdoms not from the unlimited notions of Soveraign Power and Soveraign Will and Pleasure And the Divines of the Church of England have generally look'd upon the Kingdom of England as such a limitted Monarchy and if they have been mistaken in it I hope it is a pardonable mistake because it has been so general 2. That the Laws of England are the Kings Laws This also is universally acknowledged and the reason assigned for it by the Learned Doctor Sanderson Sanders Praelectio septima de Legum humanarum causâ efficiente Quin in jure nostro in quotidianis processibus juridicis in foro contentioso ex solenni formulâ Regi●… Leges di●… solent the King's Laws non aliam ob causam ut nos docuerunt juris nostri periti quam quod Reges Angliae sint fons justiti●… Legum legibus ipsis ut pro legibus habeantur vim omnem imponendi habeant concessam sibi à Deo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 potestatem because as the Lawyers teach the Kings of England are the Fountain of Justice and Laws and have alone that Soveraign Authority that can give the Force and Vertue of Laws to the Laws themselves For tho' as he observes there is something necessary to prepare the matter for Laws as the consent and advice of Parliament yet it is the consent of the King only which gives them the Form and Obligation of Laws So that they are the Kings Laws because that it is his Authority that makes them Laws but when they are made Laws by the King they become the Laws of the Land the Rule of his own Government and his Subjects Obedience 3. 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 It is also asserted by the Divines of the Church of England That the King may pardon what Crimes he pleases and in some cases upon great and urgent necessities may dispence with some Laws for a greater publick Good or for the Relief of some particular Persons where the Law appears too hard and rigorous while the general Intention and Vigour of the Law is secur'd For as they urge the Imperfection of all humane Laws requires such an Authority as this to supply their defects But the therefore I do not so well understand for I find none of them resolve this dispensing Power into the Laws being the Kings Laws which indeed will prove a Power of dispensing with all Laws where he pleases for all Laws as well as penal Laws are the Kings Laws Nor do I find any of them say that this dispensing Power is equal in all Soveraign Princes For they generally make some difference between absolute and limited Soveraigns that is the Exercise of whose Power is bounded by Laws of their own making the first sort who can make and abrogate Laws at their own pleasure may certainly dispense with them also when they see fit whether those who can neither make nor abrogate Laws without the consent of their People can dispence with what Laws they please is a question which I find no where debated among them and therefore cannot give their opinion in it 4. That of these Reasons and these Necessities the King himself is Sole Judge This I do not find any of our Divines meddle with tho' I think the Case is very plain every Man judges for himself and will do so and therefore a Soveraign Prince who has no Superiour will finally judge for himself and no man can call him to an account for it no more than they can resist him tho' he shou'd judge amiss and exercise an illegal Power But this does not alter the case nor make that legal which in it self is illegal he is concern'd to judge right and exercise no Authority but what he may because there is a Superiour Judge even of Soveraign Princes and then which is consequent upon all 5. That this is not a trust vested in or granted to the King by the People but is the ancient remains of the Soveraign Power and Prerogatives of the Kings of England which never yet was taken from them nor can be This also is universally own'd by

his King and the Church the famous Archbishop Laud whose Judgment would weigh more with me than some other mens Reasons He quotes a saying of his out of his Book against Fisher but never directs us where to find it and that is a great book to search all over for one single passage but however the saying is so innocent that we may admit it to be his without farther Enquiry viz. That the Supreme Magistrate in the Estate Civil may not abrogate the Laws made in Parliament tho he may dispense with the Sanction or Penalty of the Law quoad hic nunc as the Lawyers speak Now unless quoad hic nunc signifies a general and unlimited Dispensation for all persons at all times I suppose it does not reach the plenitude of the Dispensing Power Quoad hic nunc I doubt may be expounded as a limitation of the Dispensing Power which will beget a dispute how far this Power of Dispensing may extend for which reason I wish he had concealed the Judgment of this great Archbishop tho the comfort is he was but a Divine and therefore his Judgment not Authentick in such matters any farther than this Author has made it so by appealing to it especially since he does not give his own Opinion in the case but refers to the received opinion of Lawyers at that time which whether it then was for an absolute Dispensing Power must be first known before we can know what the Archbishops Opinion was But he makes a much greater flourish with Archbishop Vsher who wrote an Excellent Book concerning the Power communicated by God to the Prince and the Obedience required of the Subject out of which he has transcribed four or five Pages how much to his purpose shall be presently examined But I must first mind him what another of his Witnesses The Right Reverend Dr. Sanderson Bishop of Lincoln has observed in his Preface to that Book Sect. 9 12 13. In the 9 Section he takes notice of several Objections which either were or might be made against this Book The Second is That it is not yor Divines at all to meddle in these matters whereof they are not competent Judges nor do they come within the compass of their Sphere They ought to be left to the cognizance and determination of States-men and Lawyers who best understand the constitution of the several Governments and the force and effect of the Laws of their own several respective Countries and are therefore presumed to be best able to judg the one by constitution in whom the Soveraignty resideth and the other by the Laws how that Soveraignty is bounded and limited in the exercise thereof In answer to this he says Sect. 12. True it is that for the more ease of the Governors and better satisfaction of the people in securing their Properties preserving Peace amongst them and doing them Justice the absolute and unlimited Soveraignty which Princes have by the Ordinance of God hath at all times and in all Nations been diversly limited and bounded in the ordinary exercise thereof by such Laws and Customs as the Supreme Governors themselves have consented to and allowed As with us in England there are sundry cases wherein a Subject in maintenance of his Right and Property may wage Law with the King bring his Action and have Judgment against him in open Court and the Judges in such cases are bound by their Oaths and Duties to right the Party according to Law against the King as well as against the meanest of his Subjects So that it seems this Bishop thought that the exercise of the Soveraignty might be limited by Laws and by such Laws as would hold good against the King himself in his own Courts and therefore that all Laws were not dispensable at the Kings pleasure and this Preface was wrote long after his Cases of Conscience of which more presently And he adds That the debating and determining of every doubt or controversie belongeth to the Learned Lawyers and Reverend Judges who are presumed to be best skilled in the Laws and Customs of the Land as their proper study wherein they are daily conversant and not to Divines who as Divines are not competent Judges in these matters nor do they come within the compass of their sphere By which one would guess that this Reverend Bishop did not apprehend that he himself had been guilty of determining so nice a Point of Law as the Dispensing Power tho this Author has discovered for him that he has Well but how does he bring off the Arch-bishop after all this for medling with such nice points As to that he tells us Sect. 13. That there is no need of bringing him off That in relation to the present Treatise all that he had said about Divines determining Law Cases as far as they related to Conscience might well enough have been spared wherein the Reverend Author without medling with these Punctilio's of the Law undertaketh no more but to declare and assert the Power of Soveraign Princes as the Godly Fathers and Councils of the ancient Catholick Church from the evidence of Holy Scripture and the most judicious Heathen Writers by discourse of Reason from the light of Nature have constantly taught and acknowledged the same as to the unprejudiced Reader by the perusal of the Book it self will easily appear From whence one would guess that Bishop Saunderson did not apprehend that Archbishop Vsher had determined any one point of Law about the absolute or limited exercise of the Soveraign Power according to the Constitution of these Realms and therein he had our Author differ who has found the Dispensing Power plainly determined by the Archbishop But whoever consults the Book it self and it will reward any man's pains who will do it will find that the Bishop was in the right and those Reasons which the Bishop urges will convince him That he was so For he will find that the Archbishop does not meddle with the particular Laws and Constitutions of these Kingdoms but only urges the Authority of Fathers and Councils and the Holy Scriptures and the consent of Heathen Writers which can no more determine what the particular Laws and Constitutions of these Kingdoms are than the Laws of England can the Customs of the Roman Empire The Archbishop only considered what Rights belong to the Soveraign Power wherever it is by the consent of Scriptures Fathers Councils and Heathen Writers who followed the light and conduct of natural Reason and took it for granted as the Bishop observes he well might That the Kings of England are Soveraign Princes and therefore have all the Rights of Soveraignty belonging to their Crowns But how the exercise of this Soveraign Power is limited by the particular Laws and Customs of Nations and by the consent and grants of Soveraign Princes themselves which Bishop Sanderson asserts has at all times and in all Nations been diversly limited and bounded this the Archbishop says nothing of

themselves when he found it conducing to the Weal-Publick Now I do not see one Word in this but what is the undoubted Right of the Supream executive Power For it is impossible any Nation should be well and happily governed where this Power is not And that for this Reason which the Arch-Bishop gives Because Human Laws are imperfect and therefore there must be a living Authority to supply their Defects and to temper their Severities and to pity and relieve Subjects when the case is truly pitiable But then there are some natural Limitations of the exercise of this Power in the most absolute and despotick Princes and there may be Political Limitations of it by the consent of Soveraign Princes themselves according to the Laws and Constitutions of several Kingdoms For tho the Imperial Crown can be divested of no part of Soveraign Power yet the exercise of it may be directed and limited by publick Laws as we heard before from Bishop Sanderson This last the Arch-Bishop takes no notice of it not being his design as you heard before to adjust the Rights of Princes by Political Laws but only to consider in general what are the essential Rights of Soveraign Power without examining how the exercise of it is diversly limited in different Countries And therefore let us only consider what those natural Bounds and Limits are which he has set to this dispensing and suspending Power And they are included in the reason of this Power because all Human Laws are imperfect and therefore there wants a Soveraign Power which is so far Superior to all Laws that it can correct their Faults and supply their Defects and temper them to such particular Emergencies and Cases as could not be foreseen when the Laws were made For if human Laws could be so exactly framed as to fit all possible cases if the Law were for the good of the Common-wealth the dispensing with or suspending the execution of such Laws would be a publick mischief And a Power which could serve no good end could be no Prerogative of Soveraignty And therefore the very Dispensation must be for the publick good or else it is the abuse not the natural Right of Soveraign Power To which purpose he mentions the Opinion of John of Sarisbury P. 79. I do not take away the dispensing with the Law out of the Hands of the Powers but such Precepts or Prohibitions as have a perpetual Right are not as I think to be subjected to their Will and Pleasure In those things only that are mutable the Dispensation with the Letter of the Law is to be admitted yet so as by the compensation of Honesty or Vtility the Intention of the Law may be intirely preserved So that according to this Rule the natural Instances of this dispensing Power seem to be these When a Law is made and is for the Publick Good but happens to fall very severely upon some particular Persons without their own fault only because such particular Cases were not and could not be considered in making the Law here the Equity of the Prince ought to releive such Sufferers according to his long Quotation out of AEneas Sylvius P. 91. which this Author has transcribed at large and we readily own When the Penalty annexed to the Law may in some particular cases be remitted without the publick Injury and may be thought very just and convenient with respect to the pittiable Circumstances or former Merits of the Person offending as the Archbishop observes and this Author from him P. 79. While the Laws do stand in force it is fit that sometimes the King's Clemency should be mingled with the Severity of them especially when by that means the Subjects may be freed from much detriment and damage Which belongs to the Regal not to the Ministerial Power the condition of the Magistrates whose Sentence is held corrupt if it be milder than the Laws being one thing the Power of Princes whom it becometh to qualify the sharpness of them a far different matter If any thing happens after the making of a Law which was not foreseen when it was made and which is besides or contrary to the original intention of the Law-makers and renders the execution of that Law manifestly and notoriously oppressive to the Publick the Prince may certainly suspend the Execution of such Laws till they be alter'd or repealed by the Power which made them or in the same regular Exercise of the Legislative Power as they were first made This dispensing and pardoning suspending Power is so necessary to the Publick Good that for my part I would not willingly live under any Government which wanted the Exercise of this Power And if this be all this Writer intended to prove by his long Quotations out of the Archbishop I am perfectly of his mind that the Archbishop was of his Opinion and so I believe is every Man who considers any thing For the Exercise of such a Power as this is no Injury to the Laws nor to the Legislative Authority For in this way the Prime and original Intention of the Law is always secure and can never be dispensed with the general Force and Vigor of the Law is maintained though it be remitted in some particular cases all Mens Rights and Properties are secure which are secured by the Law for the Laws can be dispensed with not for the hurt and damage but only for the Benefit of the Subject and therefore no legal Rights can be taken away by a Dispensation and more than that some Men may find Refuge and Sanctuary in the Clemency and Soveraign Power of the Prince from the Severities of the Law as far as is consistent with the Publick Good and Safety But any other dispensing Power than this the Archbishop says nothing of And this I think is answer enough to what he alledges out of Archbishop Vsher After these 3 Archbishops the next who follows is the humble patient and learned Dr. Robert Sanderson late Lord Bishop of Lincoln and were he living this Writer would exercise all the Humility and Patience he had without offering him any occasion to shew his Learning At the end of his 9 th Lecture concerning the final Cause of humane Laws Sect. 16. he comes to explain that Aphorism Salus Populi Suprema Lex The Safety of the People is the Supream Law which was expounded in those days to set up the Interest and Safety as they pretended of the People in opposition to the King which he does with so great Learning and Judgment as not only to confute but to shame all such Protences From the 18 th Sect. this Writer among others which are nothing to his purpose transcribes these Words which I suppose he thought were Non ita se voluisse Legum vinculis astringi A King that gives Laws and Statutes to his People will not or did not intend to be bound up by the Laws that it should not be lawful to him the Safety of the Common-Wealth

the severities of the penal Laws whereby he may m●…st his clemency and goodness as well as his greatness and justice of graciously pardoning the ●maller Breaches of his Laws and the more capital offences which he might most justly punish For whoever denied this The King without doubt may not only pardon some smaller Fault but the greatest of Crimes but how this is to his purpose I still want to be inform'd And so I do as to what he quotes out of Doctor Puller's Book concerning The Moderation of the Church of England I● that Equity which consists in remitting of the rig●… of the Laws when they press too hard upon particular Persons or in supplying the defects of the said Laws where they provide not sufficiently for particular ●ases which is all Doctor Puller contends for be all that this Writer wou'd have what need he to have writ a book about it and confirm'd it with so many great Authorities when I don't know that in this he has an Adversary in the World if he have it is fit such a man if ever he stood in need of Clemency and Mercy shou'd never have it Who thinks the Court of Chancery an illegal Court and yet that is properly a Court of Equity It is one thing to moderate the rigour of Laws in favourable cases another to dispense universally with such Laws as if Doctor Puller's Book prove any thing are very moderate already and yet this may be the Prince's Prerogative resulting not from Moderation and Equity but a Plenitude of Power As for his Anonymous Author with whom he concludes I neither know him nor his Book and suppose the cause will not depend upon a single Authority Thus we have heard what the Reverend Prelates and Doctors of the Church of England have said of this matter in the next place he tells us what were the Reasons that induc'd the Reverend Judges in Westminster-Hall so openly and solemnly after mature deliberation to declare their Resolutions in this Point for the thing But I had much rather he had told us what their Resolution was how far they extended this dispensing Power whether to all Cases or only to some or to all or to some as the King at any time judges necessary for I have heard very different Accounts of the matter but cou'd never see any authentick Record of it To have inform'd us in this matter had been a real Kindness because 't is the Rule of our Actions of our Words and of our Writing too for when I once know what the Judges declare to be Law I will enquire no further their Opinions solemnly declar'd must silence all Disputes because they carry Power and Authority with them unless any superiour Authority think fit at any time to judge over their Opinions This makes it very necessary to know what the Judgment and Resolution of the Judges is especially in any great and concerning Points but as for their Reasons I am not so fond of knowing them because it is the Authority of the Men not of their Reasons which must determine such matters for Mankind reasoning so very differently as they do there never cou'd be any final Determination of such Cases if all men must be first satisfied in the validity of their Reasons And therefore I think this Writer has done no service to the Cause by making their Reasons the Subject of Dispute for tho' they may be very good Reasons yet it may be all men will not think so and then such men will be apt to be dissatisfied that a Judgment which as they think is not founded on sufficient Reasons shou'd have such great Authority For it is not enough to say as this Writer does That the Reasons they went upon were only such as were exactly correspondent with the avow'd 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 Kindom For tho' the Divinity of the Kingdom is a great word and cannot be determin'd by a Jury of Divines who liv'd in different Ages and never spoke together about it nay indeed can never be determin'd by any single Divines tho' never so many and never so learned but only by the Authority of a Convocation or National Synod yet those who think the Reasons not good will like them never the better because some Divines have been of that mind when they can so out number as I said before the Church of England with Popish and Fanatick Divines who teach another Doctrine And besides this I doubt he puts it upon a very dangerous Issue For if after all his confidence and assurance other men shou'd not think that these Reasons do so exactly correspond with the avow'd Doctrines of the Bishops and Doctors of the Church of England that they have neither taught the same Doctrine nor us'd the same Reasons as possibly this Author by that time he has read thus far may see reason to suspect what then had he not better have let all this alone have not the Reverend Judges great reason to thank him for bringing their Judgment and Reasons to such a Test as they will not bear They need not the Authority of Divines to justifie their Determinations at Law and therefore it is at best over-officiousness and a lessening of their Authority to make such Appeals besides the folly and rashness of making such Appeals as will do no Service But suppose these were not the Judges Reasons how will he justifie himself for publishing these Reasons as theirs without their Authority which I dare boldly say he never had Nay I dare lay considerable odds that these were not their Reasons as he has worded and represented them and that for more Reasons than one Did all the Judges agree upon these Reasons and make a Record of them or has he seen them signed with all their Hands if not how does he know that these are their Reasons For a Bench of Judges may agree in their Conclusion when they differ in their Premises and Reasons And I will believe that they had other Reasons besides these here mentioned Possibly some such thing as this might be said in Court but I believe not as it is here reported and it is an Affront to Judges in such a weighty Point as this to declare their Reasons upon meer hear-say when it is so evident that of twenty men who hear the same thing searce two of them shall exactly agree in their Report so uncertain and variable a thing is Oral Tradition which how infallible soever it may be in Divinity is not so in Law But to let all this pass and to allow these Reasons to be very good for I will no more dispute any Reasons which are attributed to the Judges than I will dispute their Resolutions yet the question still remains Whether these Reasons are exactly the same with what