Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	court_n	ecclesiastical_a	law_n	3,228	5	5.4374	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A55705	The present settlement vindicated, and the late mis-government proved in answer to a seditious letter from a pretended loyal member of the Church of England to a relenting abdicator / by a gentleman of Ireland.	Gentleman of Ireland.	1690 (1690)	Wing P3250; ESTC R9106	56,589	74

's or his King's word And though this were a sufficient reason for the mild course taken by the new Act injoyning the Oaths yet certainly the Nation does attribute that course very much to the mild Nature of the King who would not too hastily exact a Complyance nor too severely punish the want of it though certainly the accepting of him for King and swearing Allegiance to him is a matter of far greater moment than any opposition King James met with from the Church and so might deserve a severer punishment than for not obeying an illegal Mandate Our Author misses no opportunity of telling what is doing in Scotland but he is not so forward to tell us News from Ireland He tells us the Scotch Clergy are obliged to pray for the King and Queen under pain of Deprivation and pray why should they not But does not tell us that the Bishop of Dunkell was deprived by the late King for Voting or Arguing in Parliament according to his Conscience neither does he give us any account of the pretended Act of Parliament in Ireland taking away many of the Rights of the Clergy without any pretended fault nor of their Act repealing the Acts of Settlement which almost renders useless another of their Acts attainting our Nobility Gentry and Clergy only for being in England Here is Fangs and Claws with a witness and of so weak a Government that one would think these Acts were designed for nothing else than to shew the Temper of the Man and those that influence him The fourth Article is against the Court of the Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes To which he says That the Statute repealing the first of Elizabeth hath a Salvo for the King's Supremacy so that there was an appearance of Law to justifie that Commission and that our Parliament meddle with Ecclesiastical matters also Our Author is pretty modest in this Answer pretending but to an Appearance of Law to justifie the late Commission-Court So that now I am not only to argue against the Court but also to shew how little that very Appearance really was which I think will be best done by considering the Statutes of 170 Car. primi C. 110. and the 13. Car. secundi Cap. 12. In the first we will find that the Clause of the Statute of the Queen which Erected the first Ecclesiastical Commission-Court is repealed In this I do not find any Salvo for the King's Supremacy but there is a Clause of another nature to wit That no new Court shall be Erected with the like Power Jurisdiction or Authority as the former had or pretended to have and that all such Commissions made or to be made by his Majesty his Heirs or Successors and all Sentences and Decrees by colour thereof shall be utterly void and of none effect By the 13th of King Charles the second part of this Statute is repealed but what relates to the High Commission or the new Erecting of such another Court is not this Statute has the Salvo I suppose our Author means So that now the matter is shortly thus The first Statute suppresses the High Commission-Court in being and prohibits the Erecting of any such other for the future and Enacts some other things forreign to this matter which by Charles the second 's Statute are repealed But as to the High Commission-Court it confirms the former with the Author 's Salvo that this Act shall not extend to abridge the King's Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Affairs Now though this Statute had by this Clause been Felo de se yet still by the first Statute the Erecting any such new Court is prohibited for the Salvo only is That nothing in that Act shall abridge the King's Supremacy but does not say that nothing in the former shall To obviate this our Author put his Salvo in the first rather than in the other But I say further That though the Salvo had been where our Author would have it or that the Clause had been That nothing in either of the Acts should abridge the Supremacy or to make the matter a little plainer Suppose it had been literally worded provided that the King by his Supremacy may Erect such a Court when he thinks fit the matter had been but little mended for the Enacting part that no such Court should be Erected had been good and the Proviso void for it is a known Rule in Law That the Proviso or Exception must not wholly destroy the preceding Grant though it may lessen or qualifie it As for instance If one grant to me all his Trees and afterwards adds a Proviso except all his Trees the Grant is good and the Proviso void because it would tender the Grant wholly useless but he may except all his Trees in such a place or twenty or any number by name because there is a subject both for the Grant and Exception So a Proviso in the Act might have preserved the Supremacy in Wales or any particular place but being general it is void or rather has no operation on the matter positively Enacted though it may preserve the Supremacy in other matters This Article complains as much of the Executing as the Issuing this illegal Commission To which since our Author says nothing I will only add That though the Law had been plain for the Prerogative in this case as to the Erecting of the Court yet since King Charles who was looked upon as a Protestant did not think fit to put this Power in execution during the Twenty-four years he lived after the Statute which implies That either there was no need of such a Court or that he thought he had no Power of Erecting it it was a bold step in the late King to venture on it but perfect madness as he managed the matter When the Statute was in force the Proceedings were for the Correction and Reformation of such Offences as by the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction could lawfully be corrected and reformed during the continuance of that Court which was near an hundred years The Proceedings there were only against persons that disobeyed the King's Laws never one was punished by them for not obeying a Letter but the Bishop of London the disobeying the King 's Arbitrary and Illegal Mandates was never looked upon as a crime before the late times And for a further instance and proof of their illegal Proceedings the Commissioners that acted in pursuance of the Statute could not proceed against persons for small Crimes or such as could be remedied by the ordinary For which reason we find in our Books that a Prohibition went out of the Temporal Courts to stop their Proceedings against one for Adultery as Judge Hutton tells us in Isabel Peel's Case unless in such Cases as were very exorbitant and notorious Now unless we have lost another the most secret Adultery of the Commandments is a greater Offence and a little more expresly prohibited than the Contempts punished in that Court. In Drake's Case a Prohibition went to stop