Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	according_a	act_n	act_v	270	4	7.5641	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61271	Episcopal jurisdiction asserted according to the right constitution thereof, by His Majesties laws, both ecclesiastical and temporal, occasioned by the stating and vindicating of the Bishop of Waterford's case, with the mayor and sheriffs of Waterford / by a diligent enquirer into the reasons and grounds thereof.	Stanhope, Arthur, d. 1685?; Gore, Hugh, 1612 or 13-1691.	1671 (1671)	Wing S5221; ESTC R21281	74,602	136

decernenda Censuerit ibidem Tab. 2. In Synod Nationali vel provinciali Regis rescripto convocato nihil tractari aut determinari potest nisi eo assentiente nec quicquam vim legis obtinet priusquam Regalis assensus adhibitus fuerit Dr. Zouch Descript Juris Eccles. p. 1. Sect. 2. See also to the same purpose Dr. Duck de authoritate Juris civilis in Anglia lib. 2. cap. 8. p. 3. Sect 27. And the Lord chief Justice Cook 4. p. Instit cap. 74. cited thereby him 2 The King himself in the Proclamation before mentioned declares that such Canons Constitutions c. agreed upon by the Arch-bishops Bishops and Clergie of Ireland to the end and purpose by him limited and prescribed unto them He has given His Royal assent according to the form of a certain statute or Act of Parliament made in that behalf And by his Prerogative Royal and Supream Authority in matters Ecclesiastical he has ratified and confirmed the said Canons being one hundred in number by his Letters Patents under his great Seal of Ireland And then follows His Majesties strict injunction upon all His loving Subjects of this Kingdom to obey and execute the same which I insisted upon before 3. Besides His Majesties Prerogative Royal and Supream Authority in causes Ecclesiastical the King is likewise by Act of Parliament vested with power for this purpose and that is the Statute 25 Hen. 8. cap. 19. called the Petition and Submission of the Clergie to the King For the Bishops and Clergie in Convocation having each one severally promised in verbo sacerdotis never henceforth to presume to attempt alledge claim or put in use or enact promulge or execute any new Canons Constitutions or Ordinances without the Kings most Royal assent had and obtained thereunto upon which promise and submission it was enacted by Authority of Parliament That all Convocations in time to come should always be assembled by the Authority of the Kings Writ And that the Kings license and authority being had they might make promulge and Execute such Canons Constitutions and Ordinances Provincial and Synodal which being ratified confirmed and approved under His Majesties Great Seal they then become of legal force upon the Subject This Proviso indeed follows That no Canon nor Ordinance shall be made or put in Execution by the Authority of the Convocation of the Clergie which shall be contrariant or repugnant to the Kings Prerogative Royal or the Customs and Statutes of this Realm c. Rastals collection word Rome numb 1. * Which Statutis is but declarato●y of the Common Law says my Lord Coke 4. Instit cap. 74. p. 323. So that the same is grounded both on Stat●to and Common Law The like Statute to this particular we have enacted in Ireland Entituled An Act against the Authority of the Bishop of Rome in vicessimo Octavo Hen. 8. and referred to in the Proclamation before spoken of in the second consideration A Great Lawyer one Mr. J.M. in a speech before a Committee of the Lords at the Parliament held Anno 1641. Having occasion to speak of this Statute for his speech was against the Canons made the year before avouched plainly that that clause The Clergie shall not make Canons without the Kings leave implyeth not that by his leave alone they may make them But certainly the most knowing men in any Science or faculty have not the priviledge of never mistaking in what they say for to him that advisedly considers the matter and scope of that Statute it will appear plainly That the abridging the over-growing power of the Clergie assumed by them in making and enacting Canons and pressing their authority on others And together with this the cutting them off from any relation to the Bishop of Rome and making them dependants on the King alone for the better ordering of what should be debated and determined in their Synodical meetings were if not the only yet the principal aims of that Statute Add here further that a successive and continued practice from the time when that Statute was made to this day delivers the best and truest sense of it * Practiea est legum optima intellectrix Baldus For thus as I have set down it was practised in the times of Edward the 6th Queen Elizabeth 1562. King James Anno 1603. King Charles the first in this Kingdom of Ireland Anno 1634. And though I say nothing of the Canons themselves made in the year 1640. because all authority as to them is annulled by Act of Parliament Anno 13 Caroli Secundi yet the Commission granted to the Convocation of that year at the first opening of the Parliament and of it was according to Law and this speaks plainly of the Kings leave and license granted and alone needful herein see more fully thereof in Dr. Heylins life of the Arch-bishop of Canterbury p. 423.424.425 I conclude this matter with the decision of a great Casuist He in discoursing of Ecclesiastical Laws and the manner how they are enacted in the Church of England Jus condendi leges Ecclesiasticas saies he est paenes Episcopos Presbyteros aliasque personas à totius Regni clero rite electas in legitima Synodo rite congregatas Ita tamen ut ejus juris sine potestatis exercitium in omni Repub. Christiana ex Authoritate Supremi Magistrat us Politici pendere debeat Idque aparte Ante ut loqui solemus aparte post vir ut nec iis statuendi Canones Ecclesiasticos causâ liceat convenire nisi autipsius mandato inssu ad id negotii convocatis aut ejus saltem authoritate Venia ab eo petita obtenta munitis Nec Canones in quos illi sic consenserint tali sint aut vim aliquam habeant obligandi quoad supremi Magistratus assensus accedat Cujus approbatione publica authoritate simulac confirmati fuerint illico pro legibus habendi sunt subditos obligant Bishop Sanderson de conscient obligat Praelect 7. Sect. 30. Mr. Hooker Eccles. Polit. Book 8. in p. 219.220.221 c. Thus much has been said touching the Canons of our Church and their Authority so far forth at this present as suits with the present occasion and what they were produced in proof of In several Provincial Constitutions we find it Decreed That concerning matters belonging to Ecclesiastical cognizance proceedings may be made against any Layman or publick Officers as Sheriffs and others even to the inflicting publick Censures upon them Many of this kind will occur to the Reader that is conversant in them That Constitution Aeterna Sanctis de paenis Enacted in a Council at Lambeth under Boniface Archbishop of Canterbury Anno 1260. In the time of King Henry the third And that Constitution ut invadentibus de immunitate Ecclesiae Enacted by the same Boniface likewise the Constitution contingit aliquando eodem And Accidit Novitate perversa eodem Enacted by John Stratford Archbishop of Canterbury in the time

which I mentioned before when some busie Sticklers were active and forward in fixing a Praemunire upon the Officers of the Chancery No Praemunire sayes He can be granted but at the Kings Suit and how can the King grant a Praemunire against Himself In the Court of Admiralty many more Prohibitions are brought than in the Ecclesiastical Courts There is a greater vicinity and likeness betwixt the matters tryable in that Court and those tryable at common Law and consequently greater occasion and probability of mistaking Now certainly such frequency of Prohibitions with the consequences of them would be very dilatory and tedious if the more compendious way of Praemunire were effectual and why not Praemunire lie here as well as in the Court Christian This is another Court or a Court under the large meaning of Alibi proceedings are divers therein from those of the common Law and I do not remember to have read any Praemunire brought for suing in the Admiralty excepting in two cases the one 38 Hen. 6. the other in 9 Hen. 7. Nevertheless saith Dr. Zouch although it be said that two Praemunires were brought upon such occasions yet it doth not appear that any judgment was given upon them See more to this purpose in his Jurisdiction of the Admiralty asserted But never to mince the matter Is it not here that the Shooe wrings It is the Ecclesiastical Court and that is become the great Eye-sore a thing that will not be looked upon as an offence in another Court is beheld by men through a magnifying Glass in this There are too many that cannot away at any hand with a Bishops Jurisdiction and what they do not like they easily quarrel at hence are all the prejudices that upon very little occasions are taken up and yet though good reasons be given are hardly laid down again The Spiritual Court shall be sure to have all the opprobrious and all the scurrilous imputations fastned to it Men love those sins too dearly that are punishable there and they love to hold too tenaciously those rights from others that are recoverable there Now no Delinquent loves that Judge who co●rects him for the sin he loves to c●ntinue in or will force from him the rights of others which he has no mind to part withall I wish it have not been from these or any other such gr●unds that the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction has had so many opposites and that there has been such lying at catch and waiting for advantages against it so as to terrifie with the name of Praemunire whensoever men have a mind to say there is or that there is indeed some real miscarriage therein Thus far I have enlarged in making good the second Proposition I shall collect together under one view what has been delivered thereon It was not the matter of any civil contract but a cause indisputably of Ecclesiastical cognizance that was the ground of these proceedings and therefore no Praemunire imputable on that Accompt and admitting the contract had been the ground of these proceedings yet for the reasons before shewed no Praemunire could have been incurr'd hereby and therefore the Bishop of Waterford's Jurisdiction in the case before laid down was legally founded in respect of the cause proceeded upon PROP. III. The Bishops Jurisdiction was legally managed in this cause against these persons in respect of the manner observed and followed therein It was in favour to the Mayor and Sheriffs that a civil intimation was given to them from the Bishop desiring their meeting with him This civil intimation was I will not say despised but not answered with a correspondent civility in them for they did not give the meeting to the Bishop which he desired they would And yet the end of this desired meeting was in order to a fair accompting for Moneys received by them for the Churches use and for making good the reparation of the Body of the Cathedral Church They not giving I say the Bishop this desired meeting some competent time afterwards I think a weeks space intervening Process was caused to issue forth to call them to appear before the Bishop in his Consistory on a certain day after following I cannot go forward to the sequele of this proceeding thus begun without making some little animadversion on these persons I shall forbear giving it any worse term disingenuous carriage in their Petition of Complaint Exhibited to the Lord Deputy and Council In the first Section of which they say That they the Petitioners about Ten of the Clock in the Forenoon on the twentieth of July last received a Verbal Summons from the Apparator of the Diocess of Waterford to Appear at the Consistory Court of the said Diocess before the Lord Bishop of Waterford at Two of the clock the same day The disingenuity that I observe herein is most notorious for first they speak of a Verbal Summons from an Apparator than which nothing can be more ridiculous shall I say or more false 'T is both contrary to practice for any Verbal Summons to be given by an Apparator to any person and it is of no force nor validity if any such were given and it is contrary to Truth that any such was given The Bishop of Waterford better understands both what is the ordinary practice and what will hold good and is justifiable in practice than to order his Apparator to call any of his Diocess before him without a formal Process by Verbal Summons only Next it is said That this Verbal Summons was given at Ten of the clock in the Forenoon to appear at Two of the clock in the Afternoon of the same day Here is disingenuity again There being no Accord betwixt what is thus alledged and the Acts of Court that have been expedited in this proceeding I have made it my endeavour carefully to consult these and find that an Original Citation issued out of the Registry against these persons to appear on Wednesday the 22d of July betwixt the hours of Eight and Ten in the Forenoon of the same day And I find that this Citation was executed on the persons of these men by one Michael Curren the usual Mandatary of the Court according as he declared upon Oath on the 21 day of the Month of July which was Tuesday This is the first Act of proceedings in this cause and if we will credit that as it is attested by the Register a Sworn Officer and Notary Publick then the first Section of the Petition as it relates to these proceedings contains nothing of Truth in it And as little there is in the first part of the second Section for whereas the Petitioners say That on the Two and twentieth of the said Month they were Summoned to Appear at Ten of the clock at the said Court the same day The falsity of this appears plainly by what the aforesaid Mandatary upon Oath declared namely That he had Summoned them on the Tuesday which Tuesday was the One and twentieth not the

Sect. 37. And note sayes he That the Ecclesiastical Court hath cognizance of the reparation of the Body of the Church He instances in the Body of the Church because not-excluding the other parts mention is there made of the Parishioners to whom the repair belongs and who are to contribute to the same Dr Cosen in the First part of his Apology cap. 7 informs us thus touching this matter When a Prohibition was sued out sayes he for proceeding Ecclesiastically in a matter concerning the Reparation of the Body of a Church A judgement was given thereupon in a consultation to this effect which he sayes is recorded in the Register cited by him thus pag. 43. a. Vobis igitur significamus quod super emendatione reparatione defectuum corporis Ecclesiae juxta consuetudinem approbatam facienda procedere poteritis ea facere quae ad forum Ecclesiasticum nover it is pertinere 〈◊〉 a prohibitione non obstante And by reason of defects in the reparation of a Church sayes the same Author ibid. Money it self may lawfully be sued for in a Court Ecclesiastical as appears by another consultation Reg. pag. 48. a. And so it is provided in the very Stature of circumspecte agatis The words are these mentioned in it In which case none other penance can be enjoyned but pecuniary See Lindwood ad verbum Sub poena cap. Sint Ecclesiarum Rectores De Officio Archidiaconi Lord Coke de jure Regis Ecclesiastico p 9. 3. The penalty of praemunire will not be incurred by any Ecclesiastical Judge on account of any proceedings of this Nature The proof of this Assertion depends upon two things viz. The truth of the two former Assertions that the cause proceeded upon was properly belonging to the Ecclesiastical Tribunal and that the Bishop the Ecclesiastical Judge proceeding therein acted not by or from any foreign jurisdiction or power Both these are so manifestly true that I might supersede my self the labour of saying any more therein But because some mens mouths were opened wide and loud in that point as if when by Law they could not they would yet by their clamorous votes and confident affirmings involve the Bishop in the penalty of this Statute It will therefore I think be both a seasonable undertaking and proper to our purpose to write something more particularly concerning the same and the rather because the imputation of incurring the penalty contained in that Statute is oftentimes at least threatned against those that are careful and active in the discharge of their Office of Trust in matters of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction It has been the observation of a late Historian Fuller Church History Book 4. p. 149. that this Statute of pramunire has had the hard hap not to be honoured with so many readings thereon as other Statutes And therefore I suppose the course now taken by me in speaking something hereof will appear the more excusable If not having opportunity of viewing the few readings that have been made thereon by the Learned in the Common Law I have recourse to such other Writers as upon some occasional emergency or other incidental matter have treated thereof The Writ of praemunire facias grounded principally on the Statute made in the 16 year of King Richard the Second cap. 5. is awarded against those that have procured any Process or Bull of the Pope from Rome or elsewhere for any Ecclesiastical place or preferment within this Realm or doth sue in any foreign Ecclesiastical Court to defeat or impeach the Kings Courts and the party offending herein is liable to grievous penalties mentioned in the said Statute This account of a praemunire as abstracted by him from the Statute I take from Sir Thomas Ridley in his View of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Laws p. 3. c. 1. Sect. 1. Some later Statutes sayes Dr. Cowell in the word praemunire do cast this punishment on other offenders As denying the Kings Supremacy the second time by the Statute 1 Elizab. 1. falls under the punishment of praemunire And by the Statute 13 Eliz. cap. 2. He that affirmeth the Authority of the Pope and refuses to take the Oath of Supremacy falls under the like penalty so they do likewise by the Statute of the 13 of the Q. cap. 1. that are seditious talkers or affirm the Q. Majesty to be an Heretick Now let us put all these together and whatsoever else is collected from the Statutes made before and after the Reign of King Richard the Second touching these matters Put all these I say together and what either in gross or tale will they make to disadvantage the matter we have in hand or what can be found either in the Bishop or his proceedings impeachable from thence Is it his being appointed to and setled in the Ep●scopal See of Waterford and Lismore None can affirm that For he receives not this by any Bull from Rome but by Donation and Investiture from the King of England Is it the actual exercising of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within his Diocess That cannot be neither because he is not empowred to this by any Foreign Authority but by his Majesties Letters Patents for his Consecration and by His Majesties Letters Patents for restauration of the Temporalities Are any of his proceedings against the Kings Crown and Dignity No They tend not to promote any foreign power but to maintain the Kings Prerogative and Supremacy over all persons in causes Ecclesiastical Does he refuse to take the Oath of Supremacy or fall under any of those crimes mentioned in the Statutes of Q. Elizabeth and which are liable to the penalties of praemunire This cannot be said He took the Oath of Supremacy on other occasions required by Law And he took it as is appointed at the time of his Consecration Lastly are any things done by him whereby the Kings Courts are impeached and defeated Not this because He the Kings Ecclesiastical Judge in the Diocess of Waterford and Lismore hears and determines matters of Ecclesiastical cognizance in the Kings Ecclesiastical Court there according to and by the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws Whence then may we conceive arises this imputation of a praemunire There is indeed no ground for it but in the fancies and would I had not reason to say in the wishes of such as are so ill affected that they do not patiently endure the Episcopal office much less allow the exercise of any Jurisdiction by a Bishop Observation of former times and reading besides present experience of things now brings to our knowledge the restless practises of some that endeavour by all contrivances of wit and policy to load with odious charges the exercise of Episcopal Jurisdiction and if it may be done to draw it within the penalties appointed by this Statute of Praemunire yet there are many sober and wise men who have declared openly enough their opinion That as all Jurisdiction whatsoever in these Kingdoms is radically in the King and so an Union of Ecclesiastical and Temporal

praemunire Anno 16. Richard 2d cap. 5. It is Ordained That none shall purchase or pursue in the Count of Rome or elsewhere any Processes Bulls c. nor the same bring within the Realm viz. these His Majesties Dominions This be it spoken under correction cannot rationally be intended de Curia Episcopi here within this Blealm the reason is plain because Curia Bomana vel●alibi where such Processes and Bulls c. are purchased and pursued and from whence they are brought within the Realm these I say must be somewhere out of the Realm for the bringing in of a thing excludes the obeing of that thing there already but the Bishops Courts are within the Realm and none of these Processes brought into the Realm can be from them and therefore this word alibi has no reference to nor can it be intended of them Add hereunto That the occasion inducing this Statute and recited in the preamble to lit seems not all to favour this sense of the word The Coinmons in Parliament having with great vehemency and earnestness represented the several Grievances the Kingdom lay under among others these are especially mentioned viz. The Popes Excommunicating of Bishops for executing the Kings Commandments the Popes translating of them from See to See sometimes out of the Kingdom against their own and contrary to the Kings Will The Lords Spiritual being therefore demanded as the Lords Temporal had been before what their Advice and Will was in these cases The Archbishops and Bishops and other Prelates openly disclaimed the Popes insolent carriage towards the King and His Subjects and declared That they would and ought to stand with the King in these cases in lawfully maintaining of His Crown and in all other cases touching His Crown and Regality as they be bound by their Allegiance Whereupon sayes the Statute It is Ordained and Enacted That if any purchase or pursue c. from the Court of Rome or elsewhere c. May I not here well demand what relation either in the occasion or sense of the Stature can be made up betwixt Bishops Consistories and this word Alibi Bishops in their Jurisdictions were troubled by the Pope as the King Himself was in the right of His Crown both are complained of both redressed by this Statute How can that which is the Grievance complained of in the preamble of the Statute come to be the thing aggrieving in the latter part of it The truth is provision is here made against the setting up and abetting of all Forreign Authority but Domestical proceedings in Ecclesiastical Courts are not related to This I am confident to affirm by this Authority following The preamble sayes my Lord Coke from Pl. Com. fo 369. Stowells case in every Statute is to be considered for it is the Key to open the meaning of the makers of the Act and mischiefs which they intend to remedy Also from a case 4 Ed. 4. fo 4. 12. The same learned Judge declares thus Every Statute ought to be expounded according to the intent of them that made it where the words thereof are doubtful and uncertain and according to the rehearsal of the Statute and there a general Statute is construed particularly upon consideration had of the cause of making the Act and of the rehearsal of all the parts of the Act c. 4 Instit cap. 74. It is a general Rule allowed by all Laws in construction of Statutes Quamvis lex generaliter loquatur restringenda tamen est ut cessante ratione ipsa cesset cum enim ratio sit Anima vigorque ipsius legis non videtur Legislator id sensisse quod ratione careat etiamsi Verborum generalitas prima facie aliter suadeat Idem Ibidem And for the Book-case related to and the inference made therefrom hear what a learned person has delivered very fully and appositely concerning that not in answer to this Judges opinion for he wrote many years before him but to invalidate an Assertion of the same nature with this and from the same Book-case viz. 5 Ed. 4. fol. 6. praemunire and made by one he then contended with This case does but speak of the Excommunication by a Bishop and not of every dealing whatsoever in a matter belonging to the Kings Regality and what if it had been twice so adjudged both of them in such corrupt times when as the Royal Prerogative of the Kings of this Land to be Supreme Governors in all Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical due to them in Right and by Gods Law was not de facto united to the Crown For the Bishops then did not claim their Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical next and immediately under God from the Crown as now they do but seeing this part of Regal power is now no less truly and fully vested in the Crown than is the Temporal so as the Laws allowed for the Ecclesiastical Government are termed by sundry Parliaments the Queens Ecclesiastical Laws and Laws of this Realm as well as those that were first originally made here And the Bishops are proved to have their Authority and Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical derived down unto them from the Queens Highness under the Great Seal of England Is it then the like reason still to comprise their Jurisdictions and Courts under that word of Alibi as if their Courts and Jurisdictions were not now the Queens nor yet belonging to Her Regality Cosen Apol. p. 3. ch 7. Furthermore the holding plea of a matter belonging to the common Law by an Ecclesiastical Judge so constituted as he ought to be and now is does not tend to the disinherision of the Crown that is not to the impairing of any Regality Power or Preheminence belonging to the same and therefore cannot be the crime of praemunire The Statute 25 Hen. 8. cap. 21. declares concerning whom and how offending the Statute of the 16 Richard secundi was framed namely such as sue to the Court of Rome against the Kings Crown and Dignity Royal one Statute best explains another So then where the Authority that is acted by is the same a mistake in the matter to be proceeded upon or manner of proceeding in does not infringe that authority The reason is because the Kings authority empowring to act is still acknowledged and what is judicially done thereby proceeds by power derived from Him not from any power set up against him I presume it will be readily granted That the upholding and securing the Kings Supremacy in all causes and over all persons is that which principally if not solely is aimed at by this Statute And then it plainly follows that where that Supremacy is maintained no breach of that Statute can be made nor penalty incur'd by any for a mistake only of the matter that any Plea in Subordination to the King as Supream is held upon The worst that is to be said in this case is this That he who being a spiritual Judge does take cognizance of any temporal matter offends in going beyond his Commission and