JB/028/177/004

Click Here To Edit

16

"Clergy under James I, in the year 1603, and never
"confirmed in Parliament, it has been definitely adjudged,
"says our Author upon the principles of law and the constitution,
"that where they are not merely declaratory
"of the antient Canon Law, but are introductory
"of new regulations, they do not bind the laity;
"whatever regard the Clergy may think proper to
"pay to them."

From this account, a person would be led to imagine,
that any Clergyman as well as layman,
might choose whether he would obey them or no; since
it seems intimated that they bind the Clergy no
further than the said Clergy think proper to pay
regard to them. This being the case they have just
as much binding force as that which has none at
all. Is this the case so? I am apt to think (not) otherwise
may a Clergyman be punished for disobeying any
one of them. I am apt to think he may. At
least the reason given why they are not binding
on the laity does not hold good on point of fact
with respect to the Clergy. Their reason is, that
they [the laity] are were not represented in the Assembly
by which these laws were passed. Thus
the Clergy are were then as fully represented as they ever
have been. Nor was the Royal assent wanting.
But there is no need of argument. In the same "solemn
judgement in which they are it is declared they are not to be binding

Identifier: | JB/028/177/004 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 28.
Date_1		Marginal Summary Numbering
Box	028	Main Headings	comment on the commentaries
Folio number	177	Info in main headings field	common law particular laws
Image	004	Titles	[[titles::note [b] / note [c]]]
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	4
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	b13 / e14 / b15 / e16
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks	[[watermarks::[monogram] [britannia symbol]]]
Marginals		Paper Producer
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year
Notes public		ID Number	9442
Box Contents