Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	england_n	king_n	lord_n	3,923	5	3.9670	3	true

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

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

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

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

the Divines of the Church of England that the Kings of England receive no power or Authority from the People for all Soveraign Power comes from God and the Crown of England is not Elective but Hereditary Nay they own that no Essential branch of Soveraign Power can be taken away from a Soveraign Prince the only question is whether the exercise of Soveraign Power can be regulated and limited by Laws of the Kings own making and this those who talk of a limited Monarchy must own for there can be no limited Monarchy if the exercise of Soveraign Power cannot be bounded by Laws Thus I have shewn as well as I can learn what the Sense of the Divines of the Church of England is in these Points how far they agree with the Judges reasons if they be theirs I cannot tell because I know not in what Sense they understood them As for his application of all this to the case of Liberty of Conscience I have nothing at all to say to it for since the King has declar'd his pleasure in it I will not dispute against it I am not without hope that Liberty of Conscience will not do the Church of England so much hurt as her Adversaries wish nor the Church of Rome so much good as they expected for tho' Fanaticism is a pleasing delusion Popery is not popular in this age and therefore it is not meer showing that will make Converts and I believe Liberty of Conscience it self at this time will not drive any Sober Dissenter the farther from Church And I have more hope of Gods Protection because we are upbraided as we are by this Writer with our very hope and confidence in the Divine Providence for who ever reads it can think it nothing less besides the knavery of the Quotation Doctor Hicks in answer to that Objection against the Doctrine of Passive Obedience Jovian p. 263. Where then is our security How can we be safe from the oppression of our Soveraign if we may not be allow'd to resist Among other things tells his Readers Pag. 265. that there neither is nor can be any absolute security either for the Soveraign against the Subjects or for the Subjects against the Soveraign in any Government and therefore in the second place it may be a sufficient answer to the question to show that we have all the security against the King that the King hath against us even all the security that any people in the World ever had have or ought to have and he instances in the Providence of God in the Conscience and Honour of the King and in the Laws of the Realm to which every man be he never so great is obnoxious besides the Prince himself This was all very much to the Doctors purpose it being all the Security we can have that our Prince will not oppress us which is not absolute security neither But what does this signifie to Liberty of Conscience how does this secure the Church of England if all her Enemies be let loose upon her But this Writer picking out two or three sayings from what the Doctor said of the Divine Providence without any regard to the series of the Argument concludes it with these words in Capital Letters So that they have all the security that any People in the world ever had have or ought to have As if the Doctor had taught that no People in the World ever had or ought to have any other security against the Oppression of a Soveraign Prince but only the Providence and Protection of God whereas he applies this not only to the Providence of God but To the Conscience and Honour of the King and the security of Laws The Providence of God indeed has the over-ruling determination of all things but ordinary Providence works by means and we have no reason to expect Miracles now and therefore the Providence of God does not make other securities needless The Doctor tells us Page 267. As the Princes best security against the People is the watchful Providence of God so the same watchful Providence is the Peoples best security against the Prince So that the Providence of God is an equal security to Prince and People against each other But how would any Prince look upon such a trifler who should tell him Sir all the security you have or possibly can have against your Subjects is only the Providence and Protection of God and therefore you may save Money and disband your Guards and Armies To perswade Men to part with all other securities and to venture upon the most destructive Methods in confidence of the divine Protection is like the Devils Temptation to Christ to cast himself down from the Pinnacle of the Temple for it is written he shall give his Angels charge concerning thee and in their hands they shall bear thee up lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone 4. Mat. 6. I believe both Prince and People desire all the security they can and do not think it reasonable to part with one good security because they have another We have the Kings Word his Conscience his Honour and his Laws and thank God for all and implore the Protection of his Providence without which all other Securities are nothing and next to the Providence of God Laws are the best security because they are the Foundation of Conscience and Honour too and of all promises to govern by Laws for Conscience respects Laws and where there is no Law in the the case Conscience is not concern'd and can hinder nothing and to be sure the Honour of a Prince as well as Conscience is less concern'd when it is under no restraint of Laws He concludes this Pamphlet with some few Authorities for Liberty of Conscience I shall not now examine how pertinent they are for I will give no other Answer but this when he has answered all the Presbyterian Arguments against Toleration but especially that Book call'd Tolleration discus'd and the Arguments of Doctor Parker now the Right Reverend Bishop of Oxford in his Ecclesiastical Policy When he can prove that Liberty of Conscience is the Doctrine and Practise of the Church of Rome and the standing Rule of the Inquisition then I will consider further on this Argument In the mean time Sir I am Your most Obedient Servant FINIS Books lately printed for Richard Chiswell A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome Quarto First and Second Parts A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue Quarto A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants Quarto An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church Quarto A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the CHVRCH of ENGLAND against the EXCEPTIONS of Monsieur de MEAVX late Bishop of Condom and his VINDICATOR Quarto An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto A Vindication of the Answer to SOME LATE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholick Church and Reformation of the Church of England Quarto An Historical Treatise written by an AUTHOR of the Communion of the CHVRCH of ROME touching TRANSVBSTANTIATION Wherein is made appear That according to the Principles of THAT CHVRCH This Doctrine cannot be an Article of Faith Quarto A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome with an Answer thereunto By a Protestant of the Church of England 8vo The Law-Christian's Obligations to read the Holy Scriptures Quarto The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholick Missionaries 24o. The Protestant's Companion Or an Impartial Survey and Comparison of the Protestant Religion as by Law established with the main Doctrines of Popery Wherein is shewn that Popery is contrary to Scripture Primitive Fathers and Councils and that proved from Holy Writ the Writings 〈◊〉 the Ancient Fathers for several hundred Years and the Confession of the most Learned Papists themselves Quarto A Discourse of the Holy Eucharist in the two great points of the Real Presence and the Adoration of the Host In Answer to the Two Discourses lately printed at Oxford on this Subject To which is prefixed a large Historical Preface relating to the same Argument Quarto The Pillar and Ground of Truth A Treatise shewing that the Roman Church falsly claims to be That Church and the Pillar of That Truth mentioned by S. Paul in his First Epistle to Timothy Chap. III Vers 15. Quarto A Brief Discourse concerning the Notes of the Church with some reflections on Cardinal Bell rmin's Fifteen Notes Quarto whereof Ten are extant The rest will be Published in their order A Defence of the Confuter of Bellarmin's Second Note of the Church Antiquity against the Cavills of the A●…viser Quarto The Peoples Right to read the Holy Scriptures asserted In Answer to the 6th 7th 8th 9th and 10th Chapters of the Popish Representer Second Part Two Discourses Of Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead Quarto A Short Summ●ry of the Principal Controversies between the Church of England and the Church of Rome Being a Vindication of several Protestant Doctrines in Answer to a late Pamphlet intituled Protestancy destitute of Scripture-Proofs