Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	church_n	england_n	rome_n	5,202	5	6.8819	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88684	Considerations touching the great question of the King's right in dispensing with the penal laws Written on the occasion of His late blessed Majesties granting free toleration and indulgence. By Richard Langhorn, late of the Middle Temple, Esq;	Langhorne, Richard, 1654-1679.; Langhorne, Richard, fl. 1687.	1687 (1687)	Wing L396A; ESTC R229629	25,471	35

our Inland Trade had been destroyed For Proof of their Affirmative to the Second Question they say I. It is proved by the Fifth Sixth and Eighth Grounds before layd II. To deny this would be to Charge our Laws with the highest defect imaginable for to grant as they do That the Law hath provided a Fountain of Mercy always visible and in being to take care of private and particular Persons and to dispense with Penal Laws as to such when Necessity requires and to deny that the Law hath provided any Fountain of Mercy always visible and in Being to take Care of the Publick and to provide for the Safety of the People when Necessity requires would be to charge our Law with a greater defect than ever any yet charged it with III. That if no such Power had been all Navigation as to Trade must have totally or at least for a great part have ceased during this present War for want of Mariners and all our Inland-Trade must have ceased from the time of the making of the Act touching Cart-Wheels for want of Carriages and De Witts designs for ought we know might have been effectual to have engaged us in a New War at home and to have Provoked our Non-Conformists into a Rebellion in which they would most certainly have been assisted with all necessaries from Holland for the rescuing themselves from the Inconveniencies which they pretend they lye under from the Penal Laws made against them if there had not been a Visible Power in Being to avoid the Danger then threatning us and not foreseen by the Law-makers by suspending the Execution of those Laws For Proof of their Affirmative to the Third Question and what they hold therein they say I. It is proved by the Ninth Tenth and Eleventh Grounds before layd II. There is no other Power always visible and in being which doth or can pretend with any colour of Reason to have this Right besides the King alone III. To place this Power in any other without the King would be to make that other King. And to place it any where then in the King alone so as to make some others to be sharers in this Power were to make those others to be sharers in the Highest Act of Soveraignty and consequently sharers in the Crown which would be wholly to change our Government and to alter our Laws and consequently to subvert all our Liberties and Properties which cannot be safe if any Principles be admitted in alteration of our Laws and Government And it is for this Reason that the King cannot commit the power of his Mercy concerning any Penal Statute to his Subjects Coke lib. 7. fol. 37. IV. Our Kings have always used this Power and our Judges approved the Exercise thereof to be agreeable with our Laws as is proved in the Grounds before layd And though it be true that some Ancient Laws seem suspended by a dis-usance and a seeming tacite Consent of the whole Kingdom King Judges and People yet that was in truth the suspension of the King alone For those Laws were when once made the King's Laws and the King was the only Person trusted with them he might have put them in Execution and commanded his Judges to see them put in Execution if he had pleased and his Judges would not have taken upon them to say That they the Judges or That the People had thought fit to suspend them by common consent and therefore they stood Suspended In short those who do maintain these Affirmatives in all these Questions and insist upon the Grounds and Rules before layd do for farther clearing of the matters in debate humbly offer the following Cases to Consideration as concieving the Solutions of them may settle the Point I. Suppose a Distress taken upon that Branch of the Statute of 14. Car. 2. cap. 6. which relates to the breadth of the Weels of Carts and Waggons and the Execution of which Branch was suspended by His Majesties Proclamation Would the Judges justifie this Distress or not If they did in pursuance of the Statute and dis-ailowance of the Power of Suspension the Consequences would be That they would hereby destroy the greatest part of In-Land-Trade of the Kingdom If they did not allow the Distress but agree the Act to be lawfully Suspended by the King's Proclamation issued forth in a Case where so great a Necessity required for the Publick Good Then all the three Affirmatives upon the aforesaid Questions are settled with this Addition That the King may dispense with a Malum Prohibitum though it be as it is in the Case put adjudged by Act of Parliament a Common Nusance And may dispense with a Penal Law though the Forfeitures as they are in the Case put be not given to the King but to others as in this Case to the Surveyors of the High-Ways the Poor and the Prosecutor But if the Judges in this Case as it is here put to avoid the difficulty should refuse to allow the distress upon some other Reason as rather taking upon themselves to adjudge the Act of Parliament as to this particular Branch to be void then to allow the King to have Power to Dispense with what an Act of Parliament adjudgeth to be a Common Nusance though the whole Kingdom believes that his Majesties said Proclamation was the sole Cause why there was never any Execution of that Law And that no man was ever prosecuted upon that Branch because all men generally admitted that the King had dispensed with it and had a power so to do And consequently That the Judges never had an Opportunity to Repeal it by their Judgment yet if the Judges should in this Case proceed this latter way or any other way rather then to Affirm the King 's Right for Reasons best known to themselves there would be then no more gained by this Case then A Law may be made by the Legislative Power which may be very inconvenient to the whole Kingdom And that in such Case there must necessarily be a Power somewhere either to suspend its Execution or to Repeal it totally by adjudging it to be Void And then the next Case proceeds thus II. Suppose a Law made under the penalty of 100 l. to the Prosecutor to his own Use That none shall serve His Majesty either in his Navies at Sea or in his Armies at Land or bear Arms in the Militia in any County except he first take the Oaths of Supremacy and Obedience And take the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper according to the Form used in the Church of England And Abjure Transubstantiation This Law being made Suppose France and Holland should Unite their Forces and make a present War upon His Majesty And the more to distract us and raise Divisions amongst us should publish their Placaet and promise a general Toleration to all in England in point of Religion and the Enjoyment of their Ancient Laws if the People of England will sit still and not take up

though it be true That the Judges in all Ages were and are the King's Council Learned And the Kings of England have always Claimed and Exercised this Right undoubtedly they would not have done this if their Judges had plainly told them That it was against Law or that the thing had not been clear in its own nature And if there were no Judgments in the Case mention'd in our Law-Books when the thing hath been so constantly practised it rather seems clear That it was so undoubtedly the King 's Right That no Person in any Age ever thought it a Point fit to contest upon or to put it to the Judgment of a Court. There is no dispute but that there have been many Parliaments in former times who have attempted to tear many Prerogatives from the Crown taking advantage of the Wants or Weakness of our Kings And it is as certain that the Generality of our Judges in all Ages have more enclined to lessen the King's Prerogative then to deprive the People of their Liberties either as thinking their own Interest concerned therein as Subjects or as inclining rather to an Aristocracy then to a Monarchy or rather and which is the most probable upon the account of fear of being question'd by Parliaments knowing well that whenever they did pinch hard upon the Prerogative Royal the Kings were generally Merciful in their own natures or might be prevailed upon by their Courtiers to pardon and pass by it and that it was never to be dispaired but that a way might be found to pacifie the displeasure of the Prince who was but one Man and who had no way to punish but only by displacing which was seldome done for an Error of a Man's Judgment But that whenever they happened to fall under the displeasure of a Parliament upon any jealousie of advancing the King's Prerogative too high the Excuses of Human Frailty and of Erring though a real and involuntary mistake did as seldome procure their Pardon as a like pretence would preserve a Person from the punishment of the Law who should stand Indicted before themselves For Courts are not single persons nor is it reasonable they should be their Constitutions being to take care that Justice should be Executed In Terrorem without Favour or Affection knowing that Mercy floweth by the Constitution of our Laws from another Fountain This is said supposing the Objection were True. But Secondly The Objection is before proved to be most untrue by the instances put of the Judgments given touching the Dispensing with Magna Charta Coke lib. 12. fol. 33.34 The Judgment given in 2 H. 7. fol. 6. agreed in Calvin's Case Coke lib. 7. fol. 14. and the Case of Licensing Coyning 11. H. 7. fol. 11. Object VIII That several Privy Counsellors and Great Men in former Times and particularly Cardinal Wolsey and the late Earl of Bristol have been impeached by the Concurrence of our most Learned Judges for Advising the Kings of this Realm to Dispense with Penal Laws Answ I. It is no Dishonour to Parliaments to say that all Impeachments even by Parliaments are not always just and well-grounded though judged to be so at the time when they are framed an instance may be given in the deplorable Case of the Late Noble Earl of Strafford Impeached and Attainted unhappily by a Parliament and that Attainder most happily and justly Repeal'd by this present Parliament Therefore if it could be proved That any Minister of State had at any time been impeached by a Parliament for Advising any of our Kings to Exercise the Right now asserted it would no way prove That our Kings had no such Right by our Laws Secondly But there can be no President shown of any Impeachment against any one Person in any Age by any Parliament or any other Just and Legal Authority for Advising any of our Kings to Dispense with any one or more of our Penal Laws for the Publick Good or in any Case where Publick Advantage or Necessity required such Dispensation Thirdly As to the Cases urged in the Objection they are not to the Point in Question The first of Cardinal Wolsey was as to Licenses That he granted Licenses under the Great Seal being Chancellor for Exporting Goods prohibited by Law for Advantage to himself and his Servants without the King 's Warrunt or Knowledge Coke Jurisdiction of Courts Tit. Chancery foll 90. This in truth was a Grievous Crime to grant Licenses under the Great Seal for Dispensing with Penal Laws without the King's Warrant or Knowledge But this very Charge implyes That this had been no Offence if he had been Authorized by the King's Warrant to Seal such Licenses And every Merchant knows That nothing is more in practice then for the King in special Cases to License the Exporting of Goods prohibited by particular Laws to be ordinarily Exported The Case of the late Earl of Bristol is as far from the Point as the former The Case was thus That Lord had been imployed by King James as his Majesties Ambassador in Spain to Treat touching the Marriage with the then Infanta the King of Spain being Zealous for the Religion of the Church of Rome insisted in the said Treaty to procure some favours for the English Roman-Catholicks The first Proposals as to the matter of Religion related no farther then to a Freedom of Religion for the Infanta and her Servants the Children of the Marriage and her Ecclesiasticks and Religious This could not be without the King 's particular Licenses This the King assented to Rushworth's Historical Collections fol. 4. The King agreeing thus far and the Treaty being prolongued by many Artificial delays The King of Spain urged farther in favour of the English Roman-Catholicks in general But the form and way to be left to his Majesties Wisdom and Clemency that the Mercy mmight be Acknowledged to come from his Majesty To this the said King James and his Late Majesty both Signed Rushworth fol. 287. And after all this King James for farther Satisfaction in this matter did by the Lord Conway his Majesties Secretary of State by a particular Declaration in writing Signed by the said Lord Conway and Dated Aug. 7. 1623. Declare and Engage That his said Majesty would cause a present Suspension under his Majesties Great Seal of all those Penal Laws Charges and Forfeitures whereunto the Roman-Catholick Subjects of his Majesty had thentofore been subject and in the same Grant and under the same Seal to give a Dispensation and Toleration to all the Roman-Catholicks His Majesties Subjects as well Priests as Temporal Persons c. Rushworth fol. 288.289 The Marriage not taking effect and Animosities and Feuds happening between the then Duke of Buckingham and the said Earl of Bristol the said Earl after that King's Death in Parliament impeached and wrought with the House of Commons to Impeach the said Duke And the said Duke prevailed with his then Majesty first to Exhibite an Impeachment against the said Earl